Opinion ID: 2833715
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ambiguity Concerning the Scope of the Agreements

Text: We next consider whether there is ambiguity concerning the agreements’ scope. The strong presumption favoring arbitration generally requires that we resolve doubts as to the scope of the agreements in favor of coverage. In re Kellogg, Brown & Root, Inc. , 166 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex. 2005); In re FirstMerit Bank , 52 S.W.3d 749, 753 (Tex. 2001); Cantella & Co. v. Goodwin , 924 S.W.2d 943, 944 (Tex. 1996) (per curiam) (orig. proceeding). Once an agreement is established, “a court should not deny arbitration ‘ unless it can be said with positive assurance that an arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation which would cover the dispute at issue.’” Prudential Sec. Inc. v. Marshall , 909 S.W.2d 896, 899 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam) (orig. proceeding) (emphasis in original) (quoting Neal v. Hardee’s Food Sys., Inc. , 918 F.2d 34, 37 (5th Cir. 1990)). Here, BISD claims there are construction defects throughout the two schools. This dispute is a “controversy or Claim arising out of or related to the Contract” to build the schools and thus falls squarely within the scope of the arbitration agreements. We find no ambiguity in either the validity or the scope of these arbitration agreements. Trane and the third-party defendants have proven the existence of valid arbitration agreements that cover the present dispute. In re Oakwood Mobile Homes, Inc. , 987 S.W.2d at 573. The trial court abused its discretion by denying the motions to compel arbitration after finding “the contract in question ambiguous.”