FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T AUGUST 10, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 11 65 1

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 4 :0 6- cv -0 00 42 -WL S BARBARA ELIZABETHLAW SON, In di vi du al ly andon be ha lf o f a cl as s o f al l p ers on s s im il arl y

si tu at ed , JERRY LAW SON, In di vi du al ly andon be ha lf o f a cl as s o f al l p ers on s s im il arl y

si tu at ed , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Plai nt iff s - Ap pe ll ees , ver su s LIFE OF THE SOUT H INSURANCE COMP ANY, a co rp or at io n, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt- App el la nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st10 , 20 11 )Befo re CARNES, PRYOR, an d C OX, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

CARNES, Ci rcu itJu dg e: A rul e o f co nt ractlaw i s t ha t o ne who is no t a p art y to anag reem en t cann ot
en fo rce i ts term s ag ai ns t o ne who is a pa rty. See W al sh v. Co lu m bu s, H.V. & A.R. Co ., 17 6 U.S. 4 69 , 47 9, 2 0 S .Ct. 3 93 , 39 7 (1 90 0) ; Co op er v . Meri di anYach ts , Ltd ., 57 5 F .3d11 51 , 11 69 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ); Un it edSta te s v . Pue nt es , 50 F.3d 15 67 , 15 74 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ); 1 3 S am ue l Will is to n & Ric ha rdA. Lord , A Treati se on th e Law of

Co nt ract s § 37 :1 (4t h e d. 1 99 9) (“ As a g en eral rul e, st ran ge rs to a co nt ractacqui re n o ri gh ts un de r su ch a co nt ract .” (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) ). The rig htof e nf

or cem en t g en eral ly bel on gs to th os e who ha ve pu rch as editby agree in g to be bo un d b y

th e te rm s o f th e co nt ractth em se lv es . Mos t l eg al rul es ha ve ex cep ti on s, h owe ve r, an d t hi s ru le is no ex cep ti on to th atrul e o f ex cep ti on s. In Arth urAnd ers on LLP v. Car li sl e, __ _ U.S. _

__ , 12 9 S .Ct. 1 89 6 (2 00 9) , th e Supr em e Co urt n ot edth ata no np art y to a co ntractm ay

ha ve th e le ga l ri gh t t o en fo rce i ts pro vi si on s “ th ro ug h a ss um pt io n, p ie rci ng th e co rp or at e v ei l, al te r eg o, in co rp or at io n b y

refe ren ce, thi rd -p art y

be ne fic iary

th eo rie s, wai ve r an d e st op pe l.” Id . at 1 90 2 (q uo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d)
. Life of t he So ut h In su ran ce Co m pa ny con te nd s t ha t two o f th os e ex cep ti on s—th e th ird -p art y be ne fic ia ry

do ctrin e an d e qu it ab le est op pe l— al lo w it
2to co m

pe l Ba rb ara a ndJerry

Lawso n t o a rb it rat e th ei r di sa gr eem en t wi th itun de r th e te rm s o f anarb it rat io n c laus e in a co nt ractto whi ch th e Lawso ns were p art ie s bu t Li fe o f th e So uth was no t. The Lawso ns do no t wan t t o a rb it rat e, pr eferrin g in st eadto pro ceedwith t he na ti on wid e cl as s ac ti on laws ui t the y ha ve pe nd in g ag ai ns t Li fe o f th e So ut h a ris in g o utof t he cred itli fe i ns ur an ce p ol ic y th ey pu rch as edfro m

it . They co nt en d t ha t Li fe o f th e So ut h h as no rig htto en fo rce ag ai ns t t he m

th e arb it rat io n c laus e in th e lo anag reem en t, ev enth ou gh th at ag reem en t d idlea d the m

to en te r in to a se pa rat e cre di t l ife in su ran ce co nt ractwith it . W e ag ree wi th th e Lawso ns . This is a cas e whe re the ge ne ral rul e ap pl ie s an d th e ex cep ti on s t o i t d o n ot . I. InDecem be r 20 02 th e Lawso ns pu rch as eda us ed20 00 Ch ev ro le t Bl azer fro m a car d eal ers hi p i n M orro w, Georg ia . To fi nanc e th e p ur ch as e th ey en te red in to a lo anag reem en t wi th th e d eal ers hi p. Th e d eal ers hi p a ss ig ne d t he lo an ag reem en t t o C ha se Man ha tt anBan k. The lo anag reem en t re qu ire d the Lawso ns to pa y m on th ly ins ta ll m en ts on th e carfor60 m on th s, b utitgra nt edth em th e ri gh t t o p ay

off th e lo anearl y . It al so co nt ai ne d aclaus e ti tl ed“ Agr eem en t t o Arb it rat e Dis pu te s,” wh ic h p ro vi de d: A Dis pu te m ean s an y co nt ro ve rs y or cl ai m . . . aris in g fr om or r el at in g to [th e lo an ag reem en t]. The te rm Dis pu te in cl ud es , bu t is no t li m it ed 3to , th e ne go ti at io n or br each of [th e lo an ag reem en t], or an y as pe ct of th e

sa le of th e ve hi cl e in vo lv in g an y Bu y er, Co -Buy er, Sel le r or as si gn ee, ag en t, em pl oyee, su ret y bo n d i ng co m pany or in su rer of an y of th es e pe rs on s. . . . If an y Dis pu te ari se s, ei th er y ou or we m ay ch oo se to ha ve th e Dis pu te res ol ve d b y

bi nd in g a rb it rat io n . . . . (em ph as is ad de d) . The l oa n a gr eem en t d efi ne d “ y ou ” as “ th e Bu y er” ( Barb ara Lawso n) an d “ Co -Bu y er” ( Je rry Lawso n) an d “ we” as “ th e cre di to r na m edab ov e” (th e carde al ers hi p) , “ aft er as si gn m en t, the cred it or ’s ass ig ne e” (C ha se Man ha tt an ), an d “ an y

ot he r as si gn ee” ( th ere wer e n o o th er as si gn ees ). The arb it rat io n c laus e al so pro vi de d (g ratui to us ly) “ th atth is Agre em en t t o Arb it rat e Dis pu te s s ha ll be subjec t t o a ndgo ve rn edby the Fed eral Arbi tra ti on Act, 9 U.S.C. [§ §] 1– 10 , as a m en de d.” The lo anag reem en t g av e th e Lawso ns th e o pt io n t o p ur ch as e cre di t l ife in su ran ce. The pre m iu m forth e in su ran ce was a on e-t im e, up -fro ntpa ym en t o f $5 30 .08 , andth atpre m iu m wou ldbe in cl ud edin th e to ta l am ou ntfin an cedun de r th e lo anag reem en t fo r th e p ur ch as e o f th e car . Opt in g t o p ur ch as e th e in su ran ce, th e Lawso ns ch eck edth e ap pr op ria te bo x o n t he lo anag reem en t. Inad di ti on to ch eck in g t ha t b ox on th e fo rm lo anag reem en t wi th th e car de al ers hi p, t he Lawso ns ex ecu te d asep arat e cre di t l ife in su ran ce p ol ic y ag reem en t wit h Li fe o f th e So ut h. Th e in su ran ce p ol ic y pro vi de d t ha t Li fe o f th e So ut h wo ul d pa y th e b al an ce the Lawso ns owedon th e carlo anif e it he r of th e Lawso ns di ed
4be fo re the lo anwas p ai d o ff. The to ta l co ve rag e atth e ti m e o f ex ecu ti on was t he

or ig in al lo anba lanc e o f $1 5,7 06 .20 , whi ch in cl ud edth e in su ran ce p rem iu m , bu t
co ve rag e wou ldde crea se each m on th to refl ectth e p aym en ts th atth e Lawso ns
m ad e o n t he lo an . Unl ik e th e lo anag reem en t b etween th e Lawso ns an d t he car de al ers hi p, t he in su ran ce p ol ic y ag reem en t b etweenth e Lawso ns an d Li fe o f th e So ut h d idno t co nt ai n an a rb it rat io n c laus e. 1 The in su ran ce p ol ic y

pro vi de d t ha t i f th e Lawso ns pa idoff th e lo anearl y , th ey wou ldbe eli gi bl e fo r a ref un d o f an y

rem ai ni ng pre m iu m , whi ch th e p ol ic y refe rredto as t he “un earn edpre m iu m .” The refu ndwou ldbe pro rat edba se d o n t he
am ou ntof t im e le ft o n t he ori gi na l l oa n t erm . The Laws on s p ai d o ff the lo anin Apr il 20 05 , m or e th antwo -an d- a-h al f y ears earl y . Life o f th e So ut h m ad e n o effo rt t o re fundth e u ne arn edam ou ntof t he pre pa idpre m iu m to th e Lawso ns . InMarc h o f 20 06 , witho uthavi ng reque st eda refu ndfro m Life o f th e So ut h
orno ti fy in g i t t ha t the y

ha d p ai d o ff the lo an , th e Lawso ns fil eda na ti on wid e co ns um er cl as s ac ti on in Geor gi a st at e co urt ag ai ns t Li fe o f th e So uth. Onbe ha lf of th em se lv es an d t he pu rp orte d c la ss , th e Lawso ns so ug hta refu ndof t he
un earn edpre m iu m

du e und er the in su ran ce p ol ic y be cau se of t he earl y

term in at io n

The re ason it did not is worth mentioni ng . Under Geor g ia law, a

rbitration agree ments in 1 contra cts of insuranc e, includingcre dit insurance policie s, are unenfor cea ble. See Ga . Code Ann. § 9-9-2( c)( 3), see also McCarr an-F erguson Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1012(b). 5of

th e lo an , as wel l as da m ag es un de r se ve ral co nt ractan d t ort t he or ie s, i nju nc ti ve rel ie f requi rin g Li fe o f th e So ut h “ to en su re tha t i n t he futur e in su red s . . . rece iv e [th ei r] refun ds ,” an d a tt orne y ’s fees . The p ur po rte d c la ss in cl ud edall Uni te d St at es res id en ts “ who ha ve be enor wi ll be in su redun de r a Lif e o f th e So ut h c red it in su ran ce p ol ic y ” an d “ who se un de rlyin g l oan s to pp edor c ou ldst op ” b efo re the
en d o f th e lo anterm , and“ who were n otpa idor m ig htno t b e p ai d arefu nd .” The cl as s al le ge dl y

nu m be rs in th e “ hu nd red s o f th ou sa nd s.” Life of t he So ut h fi le d am ot io n t o c om pe l arbi tra ti on ba se d o n t he arb it rat io n c laus e in th e lo anag reem en t, wh ic h p ro vi de d C ha se Man ha tt an , th e car de al ers hi p, an d t he Lawso ns th e ri gh t t o fo rce a rb it rat io n o f an y di sp ut e ari si ng fro m or r el at in g t o t ha t ag reem en t. The arb it rat io n c laus e in th e lo anag reem en t pr ov id edth at“ [n ]o cla ss act io n a rb it rat io n m ay be ord eredun de r th is Agre em en t to Arbi tra te Dis pu te s,” c f. AT&T Mo bi li ty L LC v. Co nc ep ci on , __ _ U.S. _

__ , 13 1 S.Ct . 17 40 , 17 47 (20 11 ), whi ch , gi ve n the cla ss act io n s et tl em en ts in cas es ag ai ns t ot he r cre di t i ns ur ers in vo lv in g t hi s s am e is su e, m ak es th e arb it rat io n i ss ue a hi gh st ak es on e. 2

Acc ordingto L ife of the South, the law firm re prese nting the L awsons has be en quite 2 succe ssful in bringingclaims like these in cla ss action lawsuits. See Reply Brief of A

ppellant at 1 & n.3. T he firm’ s website boasts that in similar class ac tions ithas filed a g ainst other cr edit insurers it has obtaine d settlements of $49 million, $45 m illion, and $27.5 mil lion. See http://www.butler

wooten.com/Results/Class-Action-Cases.shtml (last visited J uly 18, 2011); see also J oint Moti on for F inal Certification of a Settlement Class, Final Appr oval of Class 6Life of t he So ut h re m ov edth e la wsu itto a fed eral di st ric t co urt und er the

Cl as s Act io n F ai rn es s Act , 28 U.S.C. §§ 17 11 et s eq . and28 U.S.C. § 1 33 2( d) , br in gi ng with i t t he m ot io n t o c om pe l arbi tra ti on . The d is tri ctco urt ev en tu al ly de ni edth e m ot io n t o c om pe l arbi tra ti on . This is Life o f th e So ut h’s ap pe al fro m th e d en ia l o f th atm ot io n. Se e 9 U.S.C. § 1 6( a)(1 )(B) (“ An ap pe al m ay be tak en fro m anord er . . . den y in g ape ti ti on [un de r th e FAA] to o rd er ar bi tra ti on to pr oc eed
. . . .”). II. W e rev ie w de n ov o t he di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n t o c om pe l arb it rat io n. MS Deal er Se rv . Cor p. v . Fran kl in , 17 7 F .3d94 2, 9 46 (11 thCir
. 19 99 ). To d et erm in e whi ch di sp ut es be twee n t he pa rti es to anen fo rceabl e

3 arb it rat io n a gr eem en t ar e co ve redby the lan gu ag e o f th e arb it rat io n c laus e, we

Settlement, and Request for Permane nt Injunction and Fina l Dismiss al at 4 n.2, Perkins v. Americ an Nat’l Ins. Co., No. 3:05-CV-100-CDL (M.D. Ga . J an. 7, 2009). The results of those other c lass action lawsuits explain why L ife of the South favors ar bitration, but they

are irrele vant to the issue of whe ther it has the leg al right to force the L awsons to ar bitrate, whic h is all that is before us. Be cause our re view is de novo, we need not de cide the a rbitration issue on the same 3 basis that the district court did, and w e don’t. The district court conc luded that L ife of the South could not forc e the L awsons to ar bitrate be cause it found that the McCarr an-F erguson Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1012(b), reve rse pr eempted the Fe dera l Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., a nd under Geor g ia law, a

rbitration clause s betwee n insurers a nd insureds ar e unenf

orce able. Without rea chingthat theory

or implying a

ny view about it, we r eac h the same r esult on another ground. See L ucas v. W.W. Graing er, Inc., 257 F .3d 1249, 1256 (11th Cir. 2001) (notingthat we may aff irm the district court’s judgment on any ground that finds support in the re cord)
. 7“ ap pl y [] the fed eral subs ta nt iv e la w of a rb itrab il it y ,” whi ch is “ ap pl ic ab le to an y

arb it rat io n a gr eem en t wi th in th e co ve rag e o f th e FAA.” Klay v. All Defen da nt s, 38 9 F .3d11 91 , 12 00 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (quo ti ng Mi ts ub is hi Mo to rs Co rp . v. So le r Ch ry sl er-P lym ou th , Inc ., 47 3 U.S. 6 14 , 62 6, 1 05 S.Ct . 33 46 , 33 53 , (19 85 )). Tha t in qu iry “ m

us t b e ad dr es se d wi th a he al th y reg ardforth e fed eral po li cy fav or in g arb it rat io n,” Pic ardv. Cr ed itSo lu ti on s, In c., 56 4 F .3d12 49 , 12 53 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (quo ti ng Gil m er v . Int ers ta te /J oh ns on Lane Co rp ., 50 0 U.S. 2 0, 2 6, 1 11 S.Ct
. 16 47 , 16 52 (19 91 )), an d we m us t “ rig or ou sl y

en fo rce a gr eem en ts to arb it rat e,” Klay, 389 F.3dat 1 20 0 (q uo ti ng DeanW it te r Reyno ld s, In c. v. Byrd, 4 70 U.S. 21 3, 2 21 , 10 5 S .Ct. 1 23 8, 1 24 2 (1 98 5) ). St il l, “ arb it rat io n i s a m at te r of co nt ract[an d] th e FAA’s st ro ng pr oa rb it rat io n p ol ic y

on ly app li es to di sp ut es th atth e p art ie s h av e ag reedto arb it rat e.” Kla y , 38 9 F .3dat 1 20 0. Anex cep ti on to th atrul e is th ata no np art y
m ay for ce ar bi tra ti on “ if t he rel ev an t s ta te co ntractlaw al lo ws h im to en fo rce t he ag reem en t” to arb it rat e. Arth urAnd ers on LLP v. Car li sl e, __ _ U.S. _

__ , 12 9 S .Ct. 18 96 , 19 03 (20 09 ); c f. Bd . of Trs . v. Ci ti gr oup Gl ob al Mkts ., Inc ., 62 2 F .3d13 35 , 13 42 –4 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) (ap pl y in g s ta te co nt ractlaw t o d et erm in e if a no ns ig na to ry

to anarb it rat io n c laus e co ul d b e co m pe ll edto arb it rat e und er ag en cy pr in ci pl es ).
8As we h av e al read y m en ti on ed , “ tra di ti on al pri nc ip le s o f st at e la w” m ay al lo w “ a co nt ractto be en fo rcedby or ag ai ns t n onpa rti es to th e co nt ractth ro ug h
as su m pt io n, p ie rci ng th e co rp or at e v ei l, al te r eg o, i nc or po rat io n b y

refe ren ce, th ird -p art y

be ne fic iary

th eo rie s, wai ve r an d e st op pe l.” Ca rli sl e, 55 6 U.S. at__ _, 12 9 S .Ct. at19 02 (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Man y of t hi s C ou rt’s d eci si on s in vo lv in g t he qu es ti on of wh ethe r a n on -p art y canen fo rce a n a rb it rat io n c laus e ag ai ns t a p arty

ha ve no t m ad e cl ear t ha t t he ap pl ic ab le st at e la w pro vi de s the rul e of de ci si on forth atqu es ti on . See, e.g ., Beck er v . Davi s, 4 91 F.3d12 92 , 12 99 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) ; Bl in co v. Gree n Tre e Servi ci ng LLC, 40 0 F .3d13 08 , 13 12 (11 th Ci r. 20 05 ); I n re Hum an a, In c. Man ag edCare Lit ., 28 5 F .3d97 1, 9 76 (11 thCir
. 20 02 ), rev ’d on othe r gr ou nd s, Pa ci fiC are Hea lth S y s., In c. v. Bo ok , 53 8 U.S. 4 01 , 12 3 S .Ct. 1 53 1 (2 00 3) ; M S Deal er Se rv ic e Co rp . v. Fra nk li n, 1 77 F.3d94 2, 9 47 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 9) ; Su nk is t So ft Dri nk s, In c. v. Su nk is t Gro wers , Inc ., 10 F.3d75 3, 75 7 (1 1th C ir. 1 99 3) ; M cBro Pla nn in g a ndDev’t Co . v. Tri an gl e Ele c. Co ns tr. Co ., 74 1 F .2d34 2, 3 44 (11 thCir . 19 84 ). Howev er, the Supr em e Co urt’s 2 00 9 de ci si on in Carl is le , whi ch po st da te s al l o f th os e d eci si on s o f th is Co urt, cl ari fie s th atst at e la w go ve rn s tha t que st io n, an d t o t he ex te ntan y of o urearl ie r de ci si on s in di cat e to th e co ntrary, tho se in di cat io ns are o ve rru le d o r atlea stun de rm in edto th e p oi ntof abr og at io n b y Carl is le . See Un it edSta te s v . Sne ed , 60 0 F .3d13 26 ,

913 32 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (“ [A] prio r pa ne l’s h ol di ng is bi nd in g o n a ll subs eque nt

pa ne ls un le ss an d u nt il itis ov erru le d o r un de rm in edto th e p oi ntof abr og at io n b y th e Supr em e Co urt o r by thi s co urt s it ti ng enba nc .” (em ph as is om it te d) ). Inth is cas e, Life of t he So ut h c on te nd s tha t i t can e nf or ce the arb it rat io n cl au se in th e lo anag reem en t, t o wh ic h i t was no t a p art y , aga in stth e Lawso ns who were p art ie s, u nd er two t rad it io na l s ta te -la w pri nc ip le s. Lif e o f th e So ut h
es se nt ia ll y

arg ue s t ha t i t ca n c om

pe l t he Lawso ns to arb itrat e u nd er the ir l oa n ag reem en t wi th th e carde al ers hi p b ecau se itis a th irdpa rty ben efi ci ary to th at ag reem en t’s ar

bi tra ti on claus e, orth atitcando so un de r th e d oc tri ne of e qu it ab le
es to pp el . W e d is ag ree. A. Geo rg ialaw ap pl ie s i n t hi s ca se . See Worl d Harve stCh ur ch , Inc . v. Gui de on e Mu t. In s. Co ., 58 6 F .3d95 0, 9 56 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Und er i t “ [t]he be ne fic ia ry

of aco nt ractm ad e b etween ot he r pa rti es forhi s b en efi t m ay m ai nt ai n anact io n a ga in stth e p ro m is oron th e co nt ract .” Ga. Co de Ann . § 9 -2 -2 0( b) ; U.S. Fo od se rv ic e, In c. v. Ba rto w Cnt y . Ban k, 6 85 S.E.2d77 7, 7 79 (Ga. Ct . App . 20 09 ). Thi rd -p art y

be ne fic iarie s h av e st an di ng to en fo rce c on tra ct s i nt en de d fo r th ei r be ne fit . U.S. Foo ds erv ic e, 68 5 S .E.2dat 7 79 . “ The re m us t b e a p ro m is e b y

th e pr om is orto th e p ro m is ee t o re nd er s om e p erfo rm an ce t o ath irdpe rs on ,” Dan jor,
10In c. v. Co rp or at e Co ns tr., In c., 61 3 S .E.2d21 8, 2 21 (Ga. Ct . App . 20 05 ), an d “ th e

co nt ract in g p art ie s’ in te nt io n t o b en efi t t he th irdpa rty m us t b e sh own on th e fac e of th e co nt ract .” Don na ll ey v. St erl in g, 6 18 S.E.2d63 9, 6 41 (Ga. Ct . App . 20 05 ). The sco pe of t he arb it rat io n c laus e in th e lo anag reem en t b etween th e car de al ers hi p a ndth e Lawso ns is bro ad , eve n e xp res sl y refe rri ng to di sp ut es in vo lv in g t he Lawso ns ’ “ in su rer,” bu t t he rig htto en fo rce t ha t cl au se is cle arl y li m it edto th e Lawso ns , th e carde al ers hi p, Ch as e Manh at tan, an d any ass ig ne es of th e carde al ers hi p o r Ch as e Ma nh at ta n. (Li fe o f th e So ut h d oe s n otco nt en d t ha t i t is anass ig ne e.) The arb it rat io n c laus e in th e lo anag reem en t i s n otm an da to ry ; i t do es no t re qu ire th atev ery di sp ut e fal li ng withi n i ts sco pe be arb it rat ed . Ins te ad , th e cl au se pro vi de s t ha t “ [i]f an y Dis pu te ari se s, ei th er y ouor we m ay ch oo se to ha ve th e Dis pu te res ol ve d b y bi nd in g a rb it rat io n.” On i ts face , th e lo anag reem en t gr an ts on ly “y ou ” (d efi ne d a s t he Lawso ns ) an d “ we” (d efi ne d a s the car de al ers hi p, Ch as e Ma nh at ta n, an d t he ir a ss ig ne es ) th e ri gh t t o e le ctto arb it rat e. Life of the So ut h i s n ei th er a “ y ou ” n ora “ we.” In st ead , inpro no un term s, Li fe o f th e So uth i s an un m en ti on ed“ it ,” an d t he face of t he arb it rat io n c laus e d oe s n ot sh ow an in te ntto gi ve “ it ” th e ri gh t t o c om pe l arbi tra ti on . The l oan a gr eem en t do es no t s ho w, onit s fa ce o r el se whe re, an in te ntto all ow an y on e o th er tha n t he Lawso ns , th e carde al ers hi p, Ch as e Ma nh atta n, an d t he ass ig ne es of t he de al ers hi p
11orCh as e Ma nh at tan t o c om pe l ar bi tra ti on of adi sp ut e, an d Li fe o f th e So ut h i s no ne of tho se . B. Life of t he So ut h a ls o c on te nd s t ha t i t ca n c om pe l t he Lawso ns to arb it rat e un de r th e d oc tri ne of e qu it ab le est op pe l, wh ic h Geo rg ialaw al so reco gn iz es as a n ex cep ti on to th e g en eral rul e th aton ly the parti es who ag ree t o b e b ou ndby a
co nt ract ’s term s ca n e nf

or ce the m . See Hel m s v . Fran kl in Bu il de rs , Inc , 70 0 S.E.2d60 9, 6 12 (Ga. Ct . App . 20 10 ). Equ it ab le est op pe l al lo ws a n on si gn at ory to
anarb it rat io n a gr eem en t t o c om pe l o r to be co m

pe ll edby a sig na to ry

to arb it rat e un de r certa in cir cu m st an ces in whi ch fai rn es s re qu ire s d oi ng so . See Ord er Hom es , LLC v. Iv ers on , 68 5 S .E.2d30 4, 3 10 (Ga. Ct . App . 20 09 ) (ap pl y in g equi tabl e es to pp el wher e th e p la in ti ffs were b rin gi ng cla im s ar is in g o utof t he
co nt ractag ai ns t n on si gn at or ie s, wh il e at te m pt in g t o a vo idth e co nt ract ’s arb it rat io n c laus e); see als o In re Hu m an a, 28 5 F .3dat 9 76 (“ Inall cas es , th e lynchpi n fo r equi tabl e es to pp el is equi ty, an d t he po in t o f ap pl y in g i t t o c om pe l arb it rat io n i s t o p rev en t a s itua ti on th atwou ldfly in t he face of f ai rn es s.” (quo ta ti onm ark s an d c it at io ns om it te d) ). Geor gi a co urts ha ve ap pl ie d e qu it ab le
es to pp el in cas es in whi ch “ th e si gn at ory to a writ te n a gr eem en t . . . m us t re ly on th e te rm s o f th e wri tt enag reem en t i n a ss ert in g i ts cla im s ag ai ns t t he
12no ns ig na to ry .” Aut on at io n F in . Serv s. Co rp . v. Arai n, 5 92 S.E.2d96 , 10 0 (Ga . Ct.

App . 20 03 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s an d a lt erat io n o m it te d) (qu ot in g M S Deal er, 1 77 F.3 d a t 9 47 ). 4 Life of t he So ut h a rg ue s t ha t t he equi tabl e es to pp el ex cep ti on fit s b ecau se th e Lawso ns ’ cl ai m s ar is in g fr om th ei r cred itli fe i ns ur an ce p ol ic y ag reem en t wi th it“ m ak e ref

eren ce t o” an d “ pr es um e th e ex is te nc e o f” the lo anag reem en t
co nt ai ni ng th e arb it rat io n c laus e. See Ara in , 59 2 S .E.2dat 1 00 (qu ot in g M S Deal er, 1 77 F.3dat 9 47 ). The Laws on s’ com pl ai ntdo es refe r to th e lo an ag reem en t s ev eral ti m es an d the cla im s d ep en d o n t he ex is te nc e o f th atag reem en t be cau se witho utit , andth e Lawso n’s o bl ig at io n u nd er i t t o p ay off th e lo an , th ere wou ldbe no cred itli fe i ns ur an ce p ol ic y with Li fe o f th e So uth a ndno pre m iu m refu nddu e b ecau se th e lo anwas p ai d o ff early. It fo ll ows , Life o f th e So ut h arg ue s, tha t the Lawso ns ’ cl ai m s ag ai ns t i t “ ari se ou t o f” the lo anag reem en t, whi chth ey

m us t re ly on t o a ss ertth os e cl ai m s. Tha t i s n ota ba d a rg um en t, b utitis no t a g oo d e no ug h o ne to pre va il
. Und er Geo rg ialaw, a p la in ti ff’s cl ai m s m us t d ire ct ly, no t ju stin di rect ly, be ba se d

Geor g ia cour

ts have a lso applied equitable e stoppel to situations in which a signatory to 4 a contr act a sserts a c laim ag ainst a nonsignatory that includes “a lleg ations of substantially interdepe ndent and c oncer ted misconduct by

both the nonsignatory

and one or

more of the signatories to the contra ct.” Ar ain, 592 S.E.2d at 100 (quotation marks a nd alteration omit ted) (quotingMS Dealer , 177 F.3d at 947). That is not the situation here. 13on th e co nt ractco nt ai ni ng th e arb it rat io n c laus e in ord er fo r equi tabl e es to pp el to

co m pe l arbi tra ti onof t ho se cla im s. See Arai n, 5 92 S.E.2dat 1 01 (ho ld in g t ha t equi tabl e es to pp el is jus ti fie d b ecau se th e p la in ti ff “ as se rts on ly one
. . . cl ai m , and th e al le ga ti on s s up po rti ng th atcla im are t ie d d ire ct ly to t he [co nt ractco nt ai ni ng th e arb it rat io n c laus e]”). Wha t i s re qu ire d i s i ll us tra te d i n LaS on de v. Ci ti Fi na nc ia l M ortg . Co., 6 14 S.E.2d22 4 (Ga . Ct. Ap p. 2 00 5) . In t ha t ca se th ere were t wo p la in ti ffs , Mary andJac k LaS on de , who were s ui ng Cit iF in an ci al ov er a pr om is so ry

no te th atJac k h adsi gn edbu t M ary ha d n ot . See i d. 1 13 –1 4. Th e two of th em all eg edth atCit iF in an ci al ha d b reac he d t he term s o f th e p ro m is so ry no te
an d arel at edsec ur ity

de edon th ei r ho us e. Id . at 1 14 . The p ro m is so ry no te
co nt ai ne d a n a rb it rat io n c laus e th atin co rp or at edanarb it rat io n a gr eem en t. Id . at 11 3. Ma ry

arg ue d t ha t s he co ul d n otbe co m pe ll edto arb it rat e b ecau se sh e h adno t si gn edth e p ro m is so ry

no te or t he arb it rat io n a gr eem en t t ha t i t i nc or po rat ed . Id. at 11 4. Her a rg um en t was reject edan d s he was re qu ire d t o a rb itrat e b ecau se sh e, al on g wi th he r hu sb an d, cl ai m ed : “ th atCit iF in an ci al ’s for ecl os ur e p ro ceed in gs br each edth e p ro m is so ry

no te an d s ecu rit y

de ed . They furth er cl ai m [ed ] th at Ja ck ’s def

au ltun de r th e p ro m is so ry no te , as wel l as th e res ul ti ng for ecl os ur e au th or iz edby the no te an d s ecu rit y de ed , are v oi d. Al l o f th es e al le ga ti on s [aro se ] atlea stin pa rt f

ro m th e p ro m is so ry

no te Jac k s ig ne d.” Id. at11 5. Hav in g s ta ke d
14he r cl ai m s o n t he pro m is so ry no te , Mary was bo un d b y th e d oc tri ne of e qu it ab le
es to pp el to ab id e b y

th e arb it rat io n a gr eem en t t ha t was pa rt o f th atno te . See i d. By co nt ras t, i n t hi s ca se th e lo anag reem en t i s n otth e le ga l b as is forth e Lawso ns ’ cl ai m s ag ai ns t Li fe o f th e So uth. Th ei r co m pl ai ntdo es refe r to th e lo an orin de bt edne ss twel ve ti m es —b uton ly becau se itis factua ll y si gn ifi can t. It s factua l s ig ni fic an ce, h owe ve r, is si m pl y th atitest ab li sh es th atth e Lawso ns ha d a lo anan d t ha t t he y

pa iditoff

earl y . The l eg al ba si s o f th ei r cl ai m s, o n t he ot he r ha nd , is th e o bl ig at io n t ha t t he cred itli fe i ns ur an ce p ol ic y , a se pa rat e ag reem en t, pl aces on Life o f th e So ut h t o re fu ndan y un earn edpre m iu m

am ou ntdu e to th e Lawso ns be cau se th ey

rep ai d t he lo anearl y . So fa r as we can tel l, the re i s n o l eg al di sp ut e ab ou t wh ethe r th e lo anag reem en t p erm it te d t he Lawso ns to rep ay th ei r lo an s ea rly, noris th ere a ny gen ui ne factua l d is pu te ab ou t wh ethe r th ey di d s o. The di sp ut e in st eadari se s fr om Life o f th e So ut h’s l eg al ob li ga ti on s u nd er the cred itli fe i ns ur an ce p ol ic y to refu ndth e u ne arn edpre m iu m am ou nt . The cl ai m s are t ha t i t d idno t d is ch arg e th os e le ga l o bl ig at io ns . Andco nt rary to Li fe o f th e So ut h’s ar gu m en t, the factth atth e Lawso ns ’ co m pl ai ntm ak es refe ren ce t o and pr es um es th e ex is te nc e o f th e lo anag reem en t d oe s n otm ean th atth e Lawso n’s lo anag reem en t wi thth e d eal ers hi p, o r th ei r ob li ga ti on s und er tha t ag reem en t, ar e th e le ga l b as is forth ei r cl ai m s.
15Whi le th ere i s l an gu ag e in th e Arai n o pi ni on supp orti ng Life o f th e So ut h’s

“ m ak e ref eren ce t o” arg um en t, tha t l an gu ag e in th e o pi ni on , when readag ai ns t t he fact s an d re su ltin th atcas e, is no t t he ho ld in g. Th e Geo rg iaap pe ll at e co urt d id
no t h ol d i n Ara inth atequi tabl e es to pp el ap pl ie s wh en ev er a cl ai m m ak es refe ren ce t o a ndpre su m es th e ex is te nc e o f anag reem en t tha t co nt ai ns an arb it rat io n c laus e. Arai n was a car b uyer su in g the de al ers hi p a nda th eft pr ot ect io n s erv ic e co m

pa ny for m is rep res en ta ti on s t ha t t he de al ers hi p h adm ad e in
co nn ect io n wi th Arai n’s p ur ch as e o f a “ The ft P ro te ct io n P ro gr am ,” whi chhe ha d fin an cedth ro ug h t he de al ers hi p a lo ng with t he pu rch as e o f hi s ca r. Arain , 59 2 S.E.2dat 9 7. Th e co m

pl ai ntass ert eda Geo rg iaRICO cl ai m ag ai ns t b ot h t he de al ers hi p a ndth e th eftpro te ct io n c om pa ny for m is rep res en ta ti on s t he de al ers hi p ha d m ad e ab ou t t he th eftpro te ct io n p ro gr am . Id. Of cri ti cal im po rta nc e, th e co m pl ai ntso ug htto reco ve r th e fi na nc e ch arg es on th e am ou ntof t he lo anArai n ha d u se d t o p ur ch as e th e th eftpro te ct io n p ro gr am , andArai n h adpa idth os e fin an ce ch arg es di rect ly to t he de al ers hi p u nd er the term s o f hi s l oa n a gr eem en t wit h i t. Id
. Bo th th e d eal ers hi p a ndth e th eftpro te ct io n c om pa ny m ov edto co m

pe l arb it rat io n. Id . The l oa n a gr eem en t wi thth e d eal ers hi p c on ta in edanarb it rat io n cl au se , bu t t he sep arat e ag reem en t Ara in ha d s ig ne d wi th th e th eftpro te ct io n
16co m

pa ny didno t. Id . App aren tl y to av oi d t he arb it rat io n c laus e, Arai n v ol un ta ril y di sm is se d t he de al ers hi p a s a d efen da nt . Id. Bec au se hi s s ep arat e ag reem en t wi th th e th eftpro te ct io n c om

pa ny, the on ly rem ai ni ng de fen da nt , di d n otco nt ai n a n arb it rat io n c laus e, th e tr ia l co urt d en ie d t he co m pa ny’ s m ot io n t o c om

pe l arb it rat io n. Id
. Inrev ie win g t he de ni al of t he m ot io n t o c om pe l arbi tra ti on , th e Geo rg ia Co urt o f App eal s co nc lu de d t ha t “ Arai n’s cl ai m s ar e su ffi ci en tl y rel at edto th e [lo anag reem en t wi th th e d eal ers hi p] to jus ti fy equi tabl e es to pp el .” Id . at 1 01 . It ba se d t ha t co nc lu si onon th e fac t t ha t “ th e al le ga ti on s s up po rti ng th atcla im are ti eddi rect ly to t he [lo anag reem en t wi th th e d eal ers hi p].” Id. (e m ph as is ad de d)
. The co urt p oi nt edou t tha t Ara incla im edth atth e am ou nthe ha d p ai d fo r th e th eft pr ot ect io n p ro gr am

was e xc es si ve an d t ha t the all eg ed ly exces si ve am ou ntwas fin an cedas p artof h is lo anag reem en t wi th th e d eal ers hi p. Id . Noton ly tha t, b ut

“ Arai n [wa s] see ki ng to reco ve r th e fi na nc e ch arg es he pa idun de r [the lo an ag reem en t wi th th e d eal ers hi p].” Id. On ly the n, an d o nl y in th atco nt ex t, d idth e co urt s ta te th at“ Arai n’s cl ai m ‘ m ak es refer en ce t o andpre su m es th e ex is te nc e o f’ th e [the ft p ro te ct io n p ro gr am ] ch arg e co nt ai ne d i n the [lo anag reem en t wi th th e de al ers hi p] an d ‘de pe nd s en ti rel y up on [hi s] con tra ctua l o bl ig at io n t o p ay ’ th e fee.” Id. (e m

ph as is ad de d) (qu ot in g M S Deal er, 1 77 F.3dat 9 47 –4 8) . That
17co nt ractua l o bl ig at io n, o f co ur se , was co nt ai ne d i n t he same con tra ctth at

co nt ai ne d t he arb it rat io n c laus e: Arain ’s lo anag reem en t wi th th e d eal ers hi p. Inth e p res en t ca se , by co nt ras t, the all eg at io ns supp orti ng th e Lawso ns ’ cl ai m s ar e n ot“ ti eddi rect ly” to th e lo anag reem en t, wh ic h i s t he co nt ract
co nt ai ni ng th e arb it rat io n c laus e. The c la im s fo r refu ndof t he un earn edpre m iu m are n otba se d o n a ny mis rep res en ta ti on s m ad e b y th e d eal ers hi p o r an y

ot he r co nduc t t ha t o ccu rreddu rin g t he pu rch as e o f th e v eh ic le or t he ex ecu ti on of t he lo anag reem en t b y

th e d eal ers hi p a ndth e Lawso ns . Nothi ng in th e Lawso ns ’
co m pl ai ntall eg es th atth e cre di t i ns ur an ce p rem iu m s fi na nc edas p artof t he car pu rch as e were e xc es si ve or o th erwi se un lawfu l. An d p erh ap s m os t i m po rta nt ly, th e Lawso ns , un li ke Arai n, d o n otsee k t o re co ve r fi na nc e ch arg es or i nt eres t t he y pa idun de r th e lo anag reem en t o n t he ir c red itli fe p rem iu m . Wha t t he y co m pl ai n ab ou t—th atLife o f th e So ut h i m pr op erl y fai le d t o re fu ndth e u ne arn edpre m iu m th atwas due un de r th e cre di t i ns ur an ce p ol ic y — h ap pe ne d o nl y

aft er the lo anan d
an y in te res t o n i t h adbe enpa idin it s en ti ret y ; t he lo anag reem en t was no lo ng er i n th e p ic tu re. Whi le th e Lawso n’s cl ai m s d o m ak e ref eren ce t o a ndpre su m e th e ex is te nc e o f th e lo anag reem en t, the re i s n ot hi ng in th ei r co m pl ai ntto su gg es t t ha t th ei r cl ai m s “ de pe nd [] ent ire ly” onan y of the ir o bl ig at io ns un de r th e lo an

18ag reem en t, as th e cl ai m in Arai n d id . Becau se of t ha t, Arai n d oe s n otsupp ort Li fe of th e So ut h’s eq ui tabl e es to pp el arg um en t. The re i s, t o b e su re, a “ bu t-f or ” rel at io ns hi p b etween th e lo anag reem en t, whi chcrea te d t he de btob li ga ti on , andth e cre di t l ife in su ran ce p ol ic y th atga ve ris e to th e Lawso ns ’ cl ai m s ag ai ns t Li fe o f th e So ut h. Bu t t ha t al on e is no t en ou gh to warran t equi tabl e es to pp el . If itwere, ev ery cred itin su rer c ou ldus e an arb it rat io n c laus e in th e u nd erl y in g c red itag reem en t t o c om pe l i ts in su red s t o arb it rat e d is pu te s ar is in g fr om th ei r cred itli fe i ns ur an ce co nt ract s, d es pi te th e ab se nc e o f anarb it rat io n c laus e in th os e co nt ract s, an d e ve n t ho ug h s ta te law pr oh ib it edanin su rer fr om in cl ud in g a n a rb itrat io n c laus e in an y of i ts in su ran ce co nt ract s. See , e.g., Ga. Co de Ann . § 9 -9 -2 (c)( 3) ; Kan . Sta t. An n. § 5-4 01 ; M o. Ann . Sta t. § 43 5.3 50
. Insu m , th e Lawso ns , insee ki ng rel ie f fro m Life o f th e So ut h, d idno t as se rt
an y cla im s b as edon th e te rm s o f th ei r lo anag reem en t wi th th e carde al ers hi p, whi chco nt ai ne d an a rb it rat io n c laus e. Becaus e th e o nl y cla im s t he y

ass ert edwere ba se d o n t he term s o f th ei r cre di t l ife in su ran ce p ol ic y with Li fe o f th e So ut h, whi chdi d n otco nt ai n an a rb it rat io n c laus e, equi tabl e es to pp el do es no t al lo w Life of th e So ut h t o c om

pe l t he Lawso ns to arb it rat e. 5 Although not a

pplying G eorg ia law a

nd not binding on this Court, the decisions of a 5 couple of other c ircuits that have a ddresse d this iss ue ar e in ac cord w ith our conclusion that 19AFFIRMED.

equitable e stoppel does not apply wher e a c redit life insure r is attempting to c ompel arbitration of a dispute over

the terms of the insurance policy under a n arbitration clause c ontained in the underlying c redit agree ment. See Mundi v. Union Sec. L ife Ins. Co., 555 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009) (holdingequitable e stoppel did not apply beca use the c laim was neither “intertwine d with” the cr edit agree ment that provided for arbitra tion, nor did it “arise out of or relate direc tly to” the cr edit agree ment (quotation marks a nd alterations omi tted)); B rantley v. Republic Mortg
. Ins. Co., 424 F.3d 392, 396 (4th Cir. 2005) (holdingequitable e stoppel did not apply beca use “the mer e existence of a

loan transa ction requiringplaintiffs to obtain [credit] i nsuranc e ca nnot be the ba sis for findingtheir . . . cla ims, which arewholly unrelated to the under lying [cre dit] agree ment, to be intertwined w ith that contrac t,” and “ the plaintiffs neve r attempted to re ly on the [credit] contract to establish their c laims” (quotation marks a nd alteration omitted)). 20PRYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg e, co nc urrin g:

I co nc urin th e res ul t, b utfora di ffer en t re as on . I agr ee wi th th e m ajor it y th atin Arth urAnd ers enLLP v. Car li sl e, 55 6 U.S. --, 1 29 S. Ct. 1 89 6 (2 00 9) , th e Supr em e Co urt cl ari fie d t ha t s ta te law, n otfed eral law, g ov ern s wh ethe r a no np art y canen fo rce a n a rb it rat io n c laus e ag ai ns t a p arty , bu t I d oubtth e co nc lu si on of t he m ajor it y th at , un de r Geo rg ialaw, equi tabl e es to pp el do es no t ap pl y . I wou ldres ol ve th is ap pe al on th e sa m e g ro un d a s t he di st ric t co urt: th at th e Geo rg iaArbi tra ti on Act b ars en fo rcem en t o f th e arb it rat io n c laus e inth is di sp ut e ab ou t i ns ur an ce. The m ajor it y

op in io n c on cl ud es th at“ a p la in ti ff’s cl ai m s m us t d ire ct ly, no t jus t i nd ire ct ly, be ba se d o n the co nt ractco nt ai ni ng th e arb it rat io n c laus e in ord er fo r equi tabl e es to pp el to co m pe l arbi tra ti on of t ho se cla im s,” M aj. Op. at14 , bu t I
am les s co nf id en t t ha t t he Geor gi a co urts ap pl y th atrul e, reg ard le ss of i ts lo gi cal ap pe al . Georg iaco urts ha ve ap pl ie d s ev eral ti m es a ru le art ic ul at edby thi s C ou rt in MS Dea le r Serv ic e Co rp . v. Frank li n: “ Whe n e ach of asi gn at ory ’s cla im s ag ai ns t a n on si gn at ory

‘ m ak es refe ren ce t o’ or ‘pre su m es th e ex is te nc e o f’ the writ te n a gr eem en t, the si gn at ory ’s cla im s ‘ari se [] outof andrel at e[] di rect ly to t he [wri tt en ] ag reem en t,’ andarb it rat io n i s ap pr op ria te .” 17 7 F .3d94 2, 9 47 (11 th Cir
. 19 99 ) (al te rat io ns in ori gi na l) ( qu ot in g S un ki stSo ft Dri nk s, In c. v. Su nk is t
21Gro wers , Inc ., 10 F.3d75 3, 7 58 (11 th Cir . 19 93 )). See Ord er Ho m es , LLC v.

Iv ers on , 68 5 S .E.2d30 4, 3 10 (Ga. Ct . App . 20 09 ); P ric e v . Erns t & You ng , LLP, 61 7 S .E.2d15 6, 1 59 –6 0 (Ga . Ct. Ap p. 2 00 5) ; LaSo nd e v . Cit iF in an ci al Mo rtg . Co ., 61 4 S .E.2d22 4, 2 26 (Ga. Ct . App . 20 05 ); Lan kf or d v . Orki n Ex te rm in at in g Co ., 59 7 S .E.2d47 0, 4 74 (Ga. Ct . App . 20 04 ); Au to na ti on Fin . Serv s. Co rp . v. Arai n, 5 92 S.E.2d96 , 99 –1 01 (Ga. Ct . App . 20 03 ). Life o f th e So ut h b as es it s arg um en t o n t hi s ru le
. The Co urt o f App eal s o f Geo rg iaap pl ie d e qu it ab le est op pe l i n Ara in , 59 2 S.E.2dat 9 9– 10 1, an d h el d t ha t a s el le r of a th eftpro te ct io n p ro gr am co ul d c om

pe l arb it rat io n e ve n tho ug h i t was no t a s ig na to ry to th e co ntractco nt ai ni ng th e arb it rat io n p ro vi si on . The p la in ti ff i n Ara in bo ug hta car a ndfin an cedbo th th e car an d t he th eftpro te ct io n p ro gr am th ro ug h a n i ns ta ll m en t s al es co ntractco nt ai ni ng anarb it rat io n p ro vi si on . Id. at97 . The co urt l oo ke d t o fa ct or s al so pre se ntin th is ap pe al : “ The co m

pl ai ntass ert s t ha t [Ara in ’s] pu rch as e o f th e [the ft p ro te ct io n pr og ram ] oc cu rred‘ [i]n t he co ur se of’ [th e] sal e o f th e carto hi m ,” id . at 1 01 (th ird al te rat io n i n o rig in al ), an d “ [t]ha t ch arg e was fin an cedth ro ug h t he in st al lm en t
co nt ract , whi ch , ineffe ct , faci li ta te d t he [th eftpro te ct io n p ro gr am ] pu rch as e b y al lo win g Ara in to pa y

in in st al lm en ts . AndArai n i s s eek in g t o re co ve r th e fi na nc e ch arg es he pa idun de r th atco nt ract ,” id . The co urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t “ Arai n’s cl ai m s
22are s uf

fic ie nt ly relat edto th e arb it rat io n c on tra ctin th is cas e to jus ti fy equi tabl e es to pp el ,” id ., bec au se th e cl ai m s “ ‘m ak e[] refere nc e to an d p res um e[] th e ex is te nc e o f’ the [th eftpro te ct io n p ro gr am ] ch arg e co nt ai ne d i n t he in st al lm en t
co nt ract ,” id . (qu ot in g M S Deal er, 1 77 F.3dat 9 47 –4 8) ; s ee al so Pri ce, 6 17 S.E.2d at16 0. Arai n s ug ge st s t ha t Geo rg iaco urts m ig htco nc lu de th atth e Lawso ns are equi tabl y est op pe d fr om

ass ert in g t he no ns ig na to ry st atus of Li fe o f th e So ut h t o av oi d a rb it rat io n. Th e Lawso ns ’ co m pl ai nt“ m ak es refe ren ce t o” an d “ pr es um es th e ex is te nc e o f” the lo anag reem en t. As t he m ajor it y op in io n c orrect ly obs erv es , th e Lawso ns ’ co m

pl ai ntrefe rs to th e lo anag reem en t s ev eral ti m es an d t he ir c la im s de pe ndon th e ex is te nc e o f th atag reem en t. The Lawso ns all eg e th atth ei r da m ag es in cl ud e th e “ un earn edpre m iu m th atwas n otrefu nd ed ,” an d t ha t p rem iu m was fin an cedun de r th e lo anag reem en t. Bes id es th e ref eren ces to th e lo anag reem en t in th e co m

pl ai nt , sev eral ot he r fac ts est ab li sha co nn ect io n b etween th e two ag reem en ts : t he lo anag reem en t co nt ai ns a se ct io n e nt it le d “ Opt io na l Cr ed it In su ran ce,” wh ic h t he Lawso ns si gn edto pu rch as e a cre di t l ife in su ran ce p ol ic y

“ un de r th is Co nt ract ”; th e lo anag reem en t l is ts th e am ou ntof t he pre m iu m pa idby th e Lawso ns to pu rch as e th e in su ran ce; th e lo anfin an cedth e p aym en t o f th e pr em iu m ; an d t he arb it rat io n p ro vi si on of t he lo anag reem en t s ta te s t ha t i t co ve rs
23“ an y

co nt ro ve rs y

or c la im
. . . ari si ng fro m

or r el at in g t o t hi s C on tra ct ,” in cl ud in g cl ai m s re la te d t o “ an y

asp ectof t he sal e o f th e v eh ic le in vo lv in g a ny Buyer, CoBu y er, Sel le r, or

. . . in su rer o f an y

of t he se pe rs on s.” It i s t ru e, as th e m ajor it y

ex pl ai ns , th atArai n s ou gh t t o re co ve r fi na nc e ch arg es pa idun de r hi s l oa n a gr eem en t, b utth e Lawso ns ’ co m pl ai ntm ig htbe read th atway to o. In th ei r reque st s fo r to rt r em ed ie s, the Lawso ns co m pl ai n tha t t he y

“ ha ve su ffer edsp eci al da m ag es in th e am ou ntof t he un earn edpre m iu m th atwas no t re fu nd ed , pl us th e in te res t o n t ho se su m s.” Itis no t cl ear f ro m th e fac e o f th ei r co m pl ai ntwhet he r th e p hr as e “ th e in te res t o n t ho se su m s” refe rs to th e in te res t ch arg edun de r th e lo anag reem en t o r so m e fo rm of p reju dg m en t i nt eres t u nd er Geo rg ialaw. It i s al so tru e, as th e m ajor it y ex pl ai ns , th atth e al le ge d l iabi li ty of Life of th e So uth a ro se aft er the Lawso ns ha d p ai d t he am ou nt s o wedun de r th e lo an ag reem en t, b utArai n l ik ewis e su edth e n on si gn at ory aft er Arai n h adpa idth e ch arg es forth e th eftpro te ct io n p ro gr am th athe all eg edwere ex ces si ve . Arain di d
no t al le ge a br each of the lo anag reem en t, an d h is co m pl ai ntforda m ag es ag ai ns t th e n on si gn at ory

accrue d a fte r he ha d m ad e th e p aym en ts requi redby tha t ag reem en t.

24Eve n i f th e m ajor it y is co rrec t t ha t t he rel at io ns hi p b etween th e co m pl ai nt
an d t he co nt ractco nt ai ni ng th e arb it rat io n c laus e was m or e d ire ctin Arai n tha n t he rel at io ns hi p b etween th e Lawso ns ’ co m pl ai ntan d t he lo anag reem en t, tha t fa ct do es no t es tabl is h t ha t Geo rg iaco urts wou ldrefu se to ap pl y equi tabl e es to pp el in th is ap pe al . The m ajor it y ha s n otcit eda Geo rg iapre ced en t t ha t h el d t ha t t he rel at io ns hi p b etween a co m pl ai ntan d a n a rb it rat io n a gr eem en t was to o i nd ire ctto al lo w a no ns ig na to ry

to en fo rce the arb itrat io n a gr eem en t. The m ajor it y di sm is se s th e la ng ua ge in Arai n t ha t s up po rts th e arg um en t o f Life of t he So ut h a s d ic ta , bu t wit ho uta de ci si on fro m

a Geo rg iaco urt t ha t i s d ire ct ly on p oi nt , th e d ic taof Ara in te ll s u s m or e ab ou t h ow a Geo rg iaco urt wo ul d d eci de th is ap pe al th anou r supp os it io n. The m ajor it y

co nc ed es th atth e Lawso ns ’ co m pl ai ntm ak es refe ren ce t o a nd pr es um es th e ex is te nc e o f th e lo anag reem en t, Ma j. Op. at 1 3, b utth e m ajor it y co nc lu de s t ha t t he Lawso ns ’ co m pl ai ntis ne ve rth el es s n otti eddi rect ly to t ha t ag reem en t. The pro bl em with t ha t co nc lu si onis th atth e d eci si on s o f th e Geo rg ia
co urts st at e th at , whena co m pl ai ntm ak es refe ren ce t o a ndpre su m es th e ex is te nc e of anag reem en t wi th anarb it rat io n c laus e, th enth e co m pl ai ntis rel at edto th e ag reem en t. The Geor gi a p rece de nt s d o n otde sc rib e “ di rect ly relat ed ” is su e as a se pa rat e el em en t o f equi tabl e es to pp el . The Geo rg iapre ced en ts in st eadde sc rib e
25th e te stof d ire ctrel at io n a s b ei ng sat is fie d b y th e fo rm ul at io n fr om

MS Dea le r ab ou t re ferr in g t o a ndpre su m in g t he ex is te nc e o f th e arb it rat io n a gr eem en t: th atis , th e co m pl ai nt“ ari se [s ] ou t o f an d re la te [s ] di rect ly to t he [writ te n] ag reem en t,” whe n the co m

pl ai nt“ m ak e[s ] refe ren ce t o o r pr es um e[s ] th e ex is te nc e o f th e writ te n a gr eem en t,” wi th th e arb it rat io n c laus e, 17 7 F .3dat 9 47 (th irdalt erat io n i n or ig in al ). See Iv ers on , 68 5 S .E.2dat 3 10 ; Pr ic e, 61 7 S .E.2dat 1 60 ; LaSo nd e, 61 4 S.E.2dat 2 26 ; Ara in , 59 2 S .E.2dat 9 9- 10 1. Reg ard le ss of wh ethe r Geo rg iaco urts wou ldap pl y equi tabl e es to pp el in th is ci rcu m st an ce, Lif

e o f th e So ut h c an no t co m pe l arbi tra ti onfora di ffer en t re as on . Alt ho ug h t he Fed eral Arbi tra ti onAct p ro vi de s t ha t ag reem en ts to arb it rat e are or di na ril y en fo rceabl e, 9 U.S.C. § 1 etseq ., th e Geo rg iaArbi tra ti on Act ex cep ts fro m en fo rcem en t ag reem en ts to arb it rat e d is pu te s i nv ol vi ng “ co nt ract [s ] of in su ran ce,” Ga. Co de Ann . § 9 -9 -2 (c)( 3) . Becau se th atst at e la w “ rel at es to th e bu si ne ss of i ns ur an ce,” the McC arra n- Ferg us on Act, 1 5 U.S.C. § 10 12 (b ), m ak es it
en fo rceabl e. Ina de ci si on wher e we ad dr es se d t he in te rs ect io n o f th es e th ree st atut es , we rul edth at“ th e Mc Carr an -Fer gu so n Actex cep ts § 9 -9 -2 (c)( 3) fro m pr eem pt io n b y th e Fed eral Arbi tra ti onAct.” M cKn ig htv. Ch i. Tit le Ins . Co., 3 58 F.3 d 8 54 , 85 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) . Sin ce M cKn ig ht , th e Supr em e Co urt o f Geo rg ia al so ha s ru le d t ha t “ th e [Mc Carr an -Fer gu so n Act ] pre cl ud es th e [Fe de ral
26Arb itrat io n Act ] fro m requi rin g t he arb it rat io n o f di sp ut es in vo lv in g i ns ur an ce” i n Geo rg ia . Lov e v . Mo ne y Tree, In c., 61 4 S .E.2d47 , 50 (Ga. 20 05 ). Life of t he So ut h c on te nd s t ha t t he Geor gi a Arb it rat io n Actap pl ie s o nl y to arb it rat io n p ro vi si on s t ha t ap pe ar i n c on tra ct s fo r in su ran ce, b utth e Geo rg ia Supr em e Co urt h as no t ap pl ie d t he Geor gi a Arb it rat io n Actth atna rro wly. The arb it rat io n a gr eem en t i n Lo ve ap pe aredin a lo anag reem en t an d n otina se pa rat e

“ Vol un ta ry

Ins ur an ce El ect io n F orm ,” id . at 4 8, b utth e Geo rg iaSupr em e Co urt
ru le d t ha t t he Geor gi a Arb it rat io n Actap pl ie d. Th e co urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t t he Geo rg iaArbi tra ti on Act “ pr ov id es th atag reem en ts to arb it rat e d is pu te s re ga rd in g ‘con tra ct s o f in su ran ce’ are i nv al idin Geor gi a,” i d. at49 , andth e Actap pl ie s t o

“ arb it rat io n o f di sp ut es in vo lv in g i ns ur an ce,” i d. at50 . Like Lov e, th is di sp ut e to o in vo lv es in su ran ce, an d Geo rg iaco urts wou ldap pl y th e Geo rg iaArbi tra ti on Act
ev enth ou gh th e arb it rat io n p ro vi si on do es no t ap pe ar i n t he co nt ractof i ns ur an ce. Life of t he So ut h a ls o arg ue s t ha t t he arb it rat io n a gr eem en t h as a ch oi ce-o fla w pro vi si on th atst at es th atth e Fed eral Arbi tra ti on Act wi ll go ve rnarb it rat io n o f
an y di sp ut es , bu t n o c ou rt h as ev er h el d t ha t a c ho ic e-o f-l aw pr ov is io n c an ov erri de a st at e la w barrin g a rb it rat io n t ha t i s en fo rceabl e u nd er the McC arra nFerg us onAct. Th e ch oi ce o f la w inanun en fo rceabl e ag reem en t t o a rb it rat e is irr el ev an t. Lif

e o f th e So ut h c an no t h av e it s ca ke in th e fo rm of t he arb it rat io n
27ag reem en t an d e atitto o b y av oi di ng ap pl ic at io n o f th e Mc Carr an -Fer gu so n Act . I ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt t ha t Geo rg ialaw p ro hi bi ts arb it rat io n o f th is di sp ut e in vo lv in g i ns ur an ce.

28