Opinion ID: 2276298
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Scope of the arbitration contract

Text: Honda argues that the trial court erred in determining that Ruhl's claims did not fit within the scope of the agreement because the purchase price of the new vehicle was a term of the contract and, as such, is covered by the arbitration contract. A party is not required to arbitrate matters that it has not agreed to arbitrate. Stolt-Nielsen v. AnimalFeeds International Corp., ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 1758, 1775, 176 L.Ed.2d 605 (2010). There is a strong presumption in favor of arbitrability, and the trial court should order arbitration of any dispute that touches matters covered by the parties' contract. Kansas City Urology, P.A. v. United Healthcare Services, 261 S.W.3d 7, 12 (Mo.App.2008). In pertinent part, the arbitration agreement in this case provides: [The Parties agree] to settle by binding arbitration any dispute between them regarding: (1) the purchase/lease by Customer(s) of the above-referenced Vehicle;... (4) any dispute with respect to the existence, scope or validity of this Agreement. Matters that the Parties agree to arbitrate include ... any alleged unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable acts or practices. The underlying allegation for Ruhl's claims is that Honda unlawfully is charging a fee to prepare legal documents to finance vehicles. Therefore, any damages for Ruhl's claims are based on refunding the charged fee, which is a component of the total purchase price listed in the contract. Ruhl's claim is within the scope of the arbitration agreement because her claims challenging the fee constitute a dispute regarding the purchase of the vehicle.