Title: Ex Parte Shelton
Citation: 814 So. 2d 251
Docket Number: 1990366
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: September 7, 2001

814 So. 2d 251 (2001)
Ex parte Billy SHELTON and Mae Clark.
(Re Mae Clark v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama).
1990366.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
September 7, 2001.
*252 Myron K. Allenstein of Allenstein &amp; Associates, Gadsden, for petitioners.
Cavender C. Kimble and Teresa G. Minor of Balch &amp; Bingham, L.L.P., Birmingham; and George P. Ford of Ford &amp; Associates, P.C., Gadsden, for respondent.
JOHNSTONE, Justice.
We are now addressing Mae Clark's[1] second petition to this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the Etowah County Circuit Court to vacate its order compelling her to arbitrate her claims against Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama ("Blue Cross"). See Ex parte Shelton, 738 So. 2d 864 (Ala.1999) ("Shelton I"). In Shelton I, this Court denied the petition of Shelton and Clark for a writ of mandamus because the materials submitted in support of the first petition did not warrant relief.
In 1991, Clark applied to Blue Cross for a Medicare supplement policy, referred to as a "C Plus Medicare Select Contract." Blue Cross issued a "C Plus" contract of insurance to Clark. The contract of insurance provided, in pertinent part:
(Emphasis added.)
Shelton I, 738 So. 2d  at 867.
In February 1997, Clark sued Blue Cross on the theory that Blue Cross had wrongfully sold her a worthless C Plus policy. Because Clark was eligible for Medicaid benefits, she was ineligible for Medicare benefits and for C Plus benefits. Blue Cross moved to dismiss or, in the *253 alternative, to compel arbitration. Following arguments of counsel, the trial court granted the motion to compel arbitration filed by Blue Cross and stayed further proceedings. On February 4, 1998, Clark moved to alter, to amend, or to vacate the order compelling arbitration or, in the alternative, for a jury trial on the issue whether Clark had agreed to arbitration. On February 6, 1998, Blue Cross responded to Clark's motion. On February 10, 1998, Clark requested oral argument on her motion. On February 11, 1998, Clark petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus.
On March 3, 1998, in the trial court, Clark filed an amended motion to alter, to amend, or to vacate the order compelling arbitration on the ground that the McCarran-Ferguson Act prohibited arbitration clauses in insurance contracts. On March 4, 1998, the trial court conducted a hearing "on Clark's request for oral argument; received submissions from Clark; and held the case in abeyance" until this Court ruled on Clark's petition for a writ of mandamus. Shelton I, 738 So. 2d  at 867. On March 12, 1998, Clark filed an amended petition for a writ of mandamus. On June 11, 1999, this Court denied Clark's petition. This Court addressed Clark's amendment to her petition with the following observation:
Shelton I, 738 So. 2d  at 872.
Following our denial of her petition for a writ of mandamus, Clark filed in the Etowah County Circuit Court, among other additional things, "a memorandum against arbitration"; a motion to strike the supplemental affidavit of Melissa Brisendine, an employee of Blue Cross; a memorandum regarding the McCarran-Ferguson Act; and an affidavit from Billy Shelton. In her memorandum against arbitration, Clark asserted that the 1992 and 1993 documents purporting to add arbitration provisions to the 1991 contract of insurance were ineffective because they were not signed by an officer of Blue Cross as required by the 1991 contract of insurance. Blue Cross moved to strike an affidavit by Billy Shelton and submitted a "second" brief in support of the motion to compel arbitration. Blue Cross did not dispute Clark's assertion that the 1992 "amended contract" and the 1993 "revised contract" were not signed by an officer of Blue Cross. Likewise, Blue Cross did not dispute Clark's claim that the 1992 "amended contract" and the 1993 "revised contract" were invalid because of the absence of a Blue Cross officer's signature. Rather, Blue Cross argued that the effectiveness of the "policy amendment" had already been decided and that "there is no reason to reopen the issue." Following oral arguments by counsel, the trial court entered an order stating, in pertinent part:
In her present petition, Clark asserts, among other theories, that no valid agreement to arbitrate exists inasmuch as:
Petition, pp. 11-12. In its brief to this Court, Blue Cross does not dispute that the 1992 "amended contract" and the 1993 "revised contract" were not signed by an officer of Blue Cross. In fact, Blue Cross never addresses Clark's claim that the 1992 and 1993 documents were ineffective to add arbitration provisions to the 1991 insurance contract because they lacked a Blue Cross officer's signature. Instead, Blue Cross asserts that
Brief, p. 17. Blue Cross argues that this Court in Shelton I, supra, "affirmed" "Judge Stewart's holding that the policy amendment was effective."
First, we observe that this Court did not "affirm" the holding of the trial judge that the arbitration provisions in the 1992 "amended contract" and the 1993 "revised contract" were effective. In Shelton *255 I, we said "[b]ased on this sparse record, we cannot hold that Clark has a clear legal right to have the trial judge's arbitration order set aside." 738 So. 2d  at 870. Second, this Court has held, "the denial [of a petition for a writ of mandamus] does not operate as a binding decision on the merits." R.E. Grills, Inc. v. Davison, 641 So. 2d 225, 229 (Ala.1994). "[T]he denial of relief by mandamus does not have res judicata effect." Cutler v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 770 So. 2d 67, 69 (Ala.2000); Jack Ingram Motors, Inc. v. Ward, 768 So. 2d 362 (Ala.1999); Quality Truck &amp; Auto Sales, Inc. v. Yassine, 730 So. 2d 1164, 1167 (Ala.1999). Therefore, the denial by this Court of Clark's first petition for a writ of mandamus did not preclude Clark from asserting in the trial court and in her second petition for a writ of mandamus that the 1992 "amended contract" and the 1993 "revised contract" were ineffective because they were not signed by an officer of Blue Cross.
"A petition for a writ of mandamus is the proper means by which to challenge a trial court's order to compel arbitration."[2]Ex parte Napier, 723 So. 2d 49, 52 (Ala.1998). Because the sole question is whether the parties agreed to arbitrate, our duty according to our standard of review when, at the instance of either party, we review the ruling of the trial court on a motion to compel arbitration, is to determine de novo, whether the trial judge erred on a factual or legal issue to the substantial prejudice of the party seeking review. Ex parte Roberson, 749 So. 2d 441 (Ala.1999).
"There is no federal policy favoring arbitration under a certain set of procedural rules; the federal policy is simply to ensure the enforceability, according to their terms, of private agreements to arbitrate." Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University, 489 U.S. 468, 476, 109 S. Ct. 1248, 103 L. Ed. 2d 488 (1989). "`[A]rbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit.'" AT &amp; T Techns., Inc. v. Communications Workers of America, 475 U.S. 643, 648, 106 S. Ct. 1415, 89 L. Ed. 2d 648 (1986) (quoting United Steelworkers v. Warrior &amp; Gulf Navig. Co., 363 U.S. 574, 582, 80 S. Ct. 1347, 4 L. Ed. 2d 1409 (1960)). See also A.G. Edwards &amp; Sons, Inc. v. Clark, 558 So. 2d 358, 362 (Ala.1990). "When deciding whether the parties agreed to arbitrate a certain matter (including arbitrability), courts generally ... should apply ordinary state-law principles that govern the formation of contracts." First Options of Chicago v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 944, 115 S. Ct. 1920, 131 L. Ed. 2d 985 (1995). "`If there is doubt as to whether such an agreement [to arbitrate] exists, the matter, upon a proper and timely demand, should be submitted to a jury. Only when there is no genuine issue of fact concerning the formation of the agreement should the court decide as a matter of law that the parties did or did not enter into such an agreement.'" Allstar Homes, Inc. v. Waters, 711 So. 2d 924, 929 (Ala.1997) (citation omitted). "`A [trial] court's duty in determining whether the making or the performance of an agreement to arbitrate is in issue is analogous to its duty in ruling on a motion for summary judgment.'" Id. at 930 (citations omitted).
Recently, in Blue Cross &amp; Blue Shield of Alabama v. Woodruff, 803 So. 2d 519 (Ala. 2001), we addressed the exact issue presented *256 herewhether the absence of a signature of an officer of Blue Cross from the 1992 purportedly amended C Plus contract and the 1993 purportedly revised C Plus contract containing arbitration provisions prevented those documents from constituting valid agreements to arbitrate, even though the documents had been sent to all C Plus insureds. In Woodruff, we stated:
803 So. 2d  at 527.
After our denial of Clark's first petition for a writ of mandamus, when *258 Clark claimed to the trial court that, for the lack of a Blue Cross officer's signature, the 1992 "amended contract" and the 1993 "revised contract" were ineffective to add arbitration provisions to the 1991 contract of insurance, the burden was on Blue Cross to prove the existence of a contract "calling for arbitration and proving that that contract involves a transaction affecting interstate commerce." Woodruff, 803 So. 2d  at 523 (quoting Ex parte Caver, 742 So. 2d  at 172 n. 4). Absent proof by Blue Cross that either the 1992 "amended contract" or the 1993 "revised contract" was, in fact, signed by a Blue Cross officer as required by the 1991 contract, Clark was due holdings by the trial court that no arbitration provisions had been added to the 1991 contract, that therefore no arbitration agreement had been made, and that therefore the motion to compel would be denied. Woodruff, supra. The absence of any factual dispute on Clark's claim to this effect obviated any jury trial on the issue of the existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate. Thus, the trial court erred in reaffirming its prior order relegating Clark's claims to arbitration. Therefore, we issue a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to vacate its order compelling Clark to arbitrate her claims against Blue Cross and to enter an order denying the motion of Blue Cross to compel arbitration.
WRIT GRANTED.
MOORE, C.J., and HOUSTON, SEE, LYONS, BROWN, HARWOOD, WOODALL, and STUART, JJ., concur.
[1]  Billy Shelton has power of attorney over Mae Clark's affairs. Because Mae Clark is mentally incapacitated, Shelton is an additional plaintiff acting on Clark's behalf.
[2]  See Rule 4(d), Ala. R.App. P., as amended effective October 1, 2001. By that amendment an order either granting or denying a motion to compel arbitration will be reviewable by appeal.