Opinion ID: 1734945
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Standing of AmSouth

Text: Bhuta argues that AmSouth has no standing to enforce the arbitration agreement, because, she insists, it is neither a signatory to, nor a beneficiary of, the agreement. Brief of Appellee, at 18-19. She relies on Ex parte Stripling, 694 So.2d 1281 (Ala.1997), in which we directed the trial court to set aside an order compelling the arbitration of a dispute involving SouthTrust Bank. To be sure, the relationship of the financial entities in Stripling, namely, SouthTrust Bank and SouthTrust Securities, resembled the one in this case, just as the function of the SouthTrust Securities account the plaintiffs in Stripling opened resembled the function of the account at issue in this case. Distinctions between the two cases, however, are dispositive. Specifically, the arbitration clause in Stripling differed substantially from the one involved in this case. The clause in Stripling provided: `All controversies which may arise between the undersigned [Stipling and Tobin] and you [SouthTrust Securities] as introducing or clearing broker, your agents or employees, concerning any transaction or the construction, performance or breach of this or any other agreement between us ... shall be determined by arbitration.' 694 So.2d at 1283. (Emphasis in original.) These emphasized provisions, when considered in connection with the theory of recovery, produced a result different from the one required in this case. In Stripling, investors sought to recover from SouthTrust Bank under the doctrine of respondeat superior, that is, the theory that SouthTrust Securities was an agent or employee of SouthTrust Bank. Id. at 1283. Construing the arbitration provision in connection with the investors' theory of recovery, the Stripling Court explained: SouthTrust is not alleged to be the `agent or employee' of SouthTrust Securities to which person the agreement expressly applies, but the opposite, the principal of SouthTrust Securities. Thus, in the context of the relationship of the defendants alleged in the complaint, the agreement would appear not to apply to claims against SouthTrust. Id. (Emphasis added.) Thus, in Stripling, the arbitration provision covered only SouthTrust Securities and its  agents or employees,  id. at 1283 (emphasis in Stripling ), while the clause in this case expressly applies to every controversy between Bhuta, AmSouth Investment Services, and the correspondent.  (Emphasis added.) AmSouth is named in the Agreement and is defined as the servicing correspondent. Also, Bhuta manually entered the name of AmSouth Bank on the face of the Agreement under the section Banking Reference. Indeed, Bhuta does not allege or contend that the term correspondent refers to any other entity. AmSouth is, therefore, entitled to the benefit of the arbitration provision and does have standing to enforce it.