Opinion ID: 1039181
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Arbitrator Selection Provision

Text: The arbitration agreement provides, m part, A single, neutral arbitrator who is licensed to practice law shall conduct the arbitration. MHN shall provide Provider with a list of three neutral arbitrators from which Provider shall select its choice of arbitrator for the arbitration. CP at 49. MHN suggests that because the AAA rules are incorporated by reference into the agreement, some hybrid between what is written in the agreement and the AAA rules will be used to select an arbitrator. See Br. of Appellant at 31-3 3. Although the agreement allows MHN to select any three neutral arbitrators, MHN claims that they are bound to select from a list provided by the AAA. This is not the case. Under both the commercial and employment rules, if the arbitration agreement provides its own method for arbitrator selection, that method is used and the AAA does not provide a list of neutral arbitrators. 5 Substantive unconscionability concerns overly harsh or one-sided results. Armendariz, 24 Cal. 4th at 114. On its face, this arbitrator selection 5 Am. Arbitration Ass'n, Employment Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures 24 (Nov. 1, 2009), available at http://www.adr.org/aaa/ShowProperty?nodeld=/UCJV17ADRSTCCOU43o2-&revisiori:=::Jates treleased; Am. Arbitration Ass'n, Commercial Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures 19 (June 1, 2009), available at http://www.adr.org/aaa/ShowProperty?nodeid=/UCM/ADRSTG_004103&revision=lates treleased. 18 Brown v. MHN Government Services, et al., No. 87953-2 provision is substantively unconscionable. It allows MHN to select any three arbitrators whom it purports to be neutral, from which Brown and Hiett are bound to select the final arbitrator. Because the provision is both overly harsh and one-sided in favor of MHN, we find the arbitrator selection provision substantively unconscionable