Opinion ID: 864563
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether legal constraints external to the

Text: PARTIES’ AGREEMENT FORECLOSE THE ARBITRATION OF THOSE CLAIMS. ¶49. While the parties do not address this issue, we are compelled to at least briefly do so since this is the second prong in the required two-prong test in determining the validity of a motion to compel arbitration under the FAA. East Ford, 826 So.2d at 713. This issue was addressed by the United States Supreme Court in Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler ChryslerPlymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 105 S.Ct. 3346, 87 L.Ed.2d 444 (1985). The Court stated: That is not to say that all controversies implicating statutory rights are suitable for arbitration. There is no reason to distort the process of contract interpretation, however, in order to ferret out the inappropriate. Just as it is the congressional policy manifested in the Federal Arbitration Act that requires courts liberally to construe the scope of the arbitration agreements covered by the Act, it is the congressional intention expressed in some other statute on which the courts must rely to identify any category of claims as to which agreements to arbitrate will be held unenforceable. (Citations omitted).