Opinion ID: 787165
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Waiver and Timely Demand

Text: 11 [W]hether the parties have submitted a particular dispute to arbitration, i.e., the ` question of arbitrability, ' is `an issue for judicial determination [u]nless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise.' Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79, 83, 123 S.Ct. 588, 154 L.Ed.2d 491 (2002) (quoting AT & T Tech., Inc. v. Communications Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643, 649, 106 S.Ct. 1415, 89 L.Ed.2d 648 (1986)) (second alteration in original); see First Options, 514 U.S. at 944, 115 S.Ct. 1920. We must decide whether Pro Tech's allegations of waiver and insufficient and untimely demand, are questions of arbitrability. 12 [T]he presumption is that the arbitrator should decide `allegation[s] of waiver, delay, or a like defense to arbitrability.' Howsam, 537 U.S. at 84, 123 S.Ct. 588 (quoting Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24-25, 103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983)) (second alteration in original). Indeed, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, issues of substantive arbitrability ... are for a court to decide and issues of procedural arbitrability, i.e., whether prerequisites such as time limits, notice, laches, estoppel, and other conditions precedent to an obligation to arbitrate have been met, are for the arbitrators to decide. Howsam, 537 U.S. at 85, 123 S.Ct. 588 (citations omitted). 13 Following this precedent, we conclude questions of whether waiver occurred and whether demand was sufficient and timely under the agreement, involve issues of procedural arbitrability, matters presumptively for the arbitrator, not for the judge. See Int'l. Ass'n of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental, & Reinforcing Ironworkers, Local 493 v. EFCO Corp. & Constr. Prods., Inc., 359 F.3d 954, 957 (8th Cir.2004) (noting the question of whether the procedural prerequisites have been complied with or ... waived ... is a matter for the arbitrator and not for the court); Dominium Austin Partners, LLC v. Emerson, 248 F.3d 720, 728 (8th Cir.2001) (ruling issue of waiver of arbitration because of untimely demand is for arbitration); Contracting Northwest, Inc. v. City of Fredericksburg, 713 F.2d 382, 386 (8th Cir.1983) (ruling the court would not entertain an objection that opposing party failed to deliver an arbitration demand within time limit); Auto., Petro. & Allied Indus. Employees Union, Local No. 618 v. Town & Country Ford, Inc., 709 F.2d 509, 514 (8th Cir.1983) (stating the issue of whether the Union's alleged failure to satisfy the notice requirement barred arbitration is one of procedural arbitrability, and is reserved for the arbitrator, and not the district court). 14 Furthermore, arbitrators are the experts about the meaning of their own rules, and are comparatively better able to interpret and to apply them than courts. In the absence of any contrary statement in the arbitration provision, it is reasonable to infer that the parties intended the provision to reflect that understanding. See Howsam, 537 U.S. at 85, 123 S.Ct. 588 (for the law to assume an expectation that aligns (1) decisionmaker with (2) comparative expertise will help better to secure a fair and expeditious resolution of the underlying controversy — a goal of arbitration systems and judicial systems alike). 15 Accordingly, we conclude Pro Tech's allegations of waiver and insufficient demand fall within the class of gateway procedural disputes that do not present questions of arbitrability this court should decide.