Opinion ID: 1855862
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: GM and Universal

Text: After carefully reviewing the record and the briefs, we conclude that the trial court properly denied arbitration of the Duttons' claims against GM and Universal. The Retail Installment Contract and Security Agreement incorporates the provisions of the Buyer's Order, including that document's arbitration provision. Therefore, the arbitration provisions contained in those documents must be read together to determine whether the Duttons agreed to arbitrate with nonsignatories. [2] The arbitration agreement contained in the Buyer's Order states in part that [a]ny dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this agreement, or the breach thereof, or arising out of any prior dealings between seller and buyer or arising out of any future dealings between seller and buyer, shall be settled by arbitration. Standing alone, the reference to [a]ny dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this agreement could logically be read independently of the later references to seller and buyer; read alone, that reference could suggest an agreement on the part of the Duttons to arbitrate disputes with nonsignatories, such as GM and Universal, provided that the dispute, controversy or claim arose out of or related to the agreement. However, we think that reading the more specific arbitration provision contained in the Retail Installment Contract and Security Agreement in conjunction with the more generic provision contained in the Buyer's Order makes the parties' intent clear: [I]t is the intention of the customer [the Duttons], dealer [Edwards] and dealer's assignees [Premier], to resolve, by binding arbitration, all disputes between or among them concerning all direct and indirect aspects of the sale and credit terms, the sale and financing of the motor vehicle, the condition of the vehicle, the terms of financing, the sale of credit insurance, service contracts and other services or products, any representations, promises or omissions made in connection with negotiations for the sale and financing and any terms, conditions, or representations made in connection with the sale and financing matters of credit life insurance, disability insurance, service contracts or agreements, or otherwise arising out of or resulting from the business transactions entered into on the day and date hereof, in tort, contract, by statute or otherwise. (Emphasis added.) When we consider both of the arbitration provisions agreed to by the Duttons, we cannot hold that they agreed to arbitrate disputes with nonsignatories. See Ex parte Isbell, 708 So.2d 571 (Ala.1997), wherein this Court read two provisions in the same agreement in pari materia for the purpose of determining whether nonsignatories were within the scope of the agreement. Therefore, we do not address GM and Universal's argument that the Duttons should be equitably estopped from denying an obligation to arbitrate their claims. See First Family Financial Services, Inc. v. Rogers, 736 So.2d 553 (Ala.1999), and the cases cited therein. The order is affirmed to the extent it denied arbitration of the claims against GM and Universal.