Opinion ID: 1427054
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Meaning of Arise Out Of

Text: To arise out of means to originate from a specified source, Webster's Third New International Dictionary 117 (1981); see Coregis Ins. Co. v. Am. Health Found., Inc., 241 F.3d 123, 128 (2d Cir.2001), and generally indicates a causal connection, Coregis, 241 F.3d at 128. We do not understand the words arise out of as encompassing all claims that have some possible relationship with the contract, including claims that may only relate to, be associated with, or arise in connection with the contract. See Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 644, 105 S.Ct. 3346, 87 L.Ed.2d 444 (1985) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (distinguishing between scope afforded by phrases arise out of and in relation to); Coregis, 241 F.3d at 128-29; Wyeth, 119 F.3d at 1074 (reasoning that arising in relation to is broader than arising under); but cf. Roby, 996 F.2d at 1361 (declining to differentiate between phrases relating to, in connection with, and arising from and holding that broadly worded clause encompassed non-contract claims). In the same vein, we decline to ascribe to these three words the expansive connotations set out in Omron Healthcare, Inc. v. Maclaren Exps. Ltd., 28 F.3d 600 (7th Cir.1994), where the Seventh Circuit enforced a substantially similar forum selection clause in a comparable factual scenario. In Omron, the Seventh Circuit enforced a forum clause covering all disputes arising out of a contract against the plaintiff-distributor who had brought suit alleging that the defendant-manufacturer continued to sell merchandise bearing the plaintiff's trademark after the distribution agreement between the parties had terminated. Id. at 601-04. The Omron court reasoned that all disputes the resolution of which arguably depend on the construction of an agreement `arise out of' that agreement. Id. at 603. The scope attributed by the Seventh Circuit to the words arise out of was adopted from its interpretation of arbitration clauses. Id. at 603. Like the Seventh Circuit, typically we view phrases similar to arise out of in arbitration clauses to cover collateral matters that implicate issues of contract construction. See Louis Dreyfus, 252 F.3d at 224-25. Unlike the court in Omron, we decline to import whole the interpretive guidelines developed by the federal courts to assess the scope of arbitration clauses into the present context. See Omron, 28 F.3d at 603. Our assessment of the scope of arbitration clauses is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., which establishes as a matter of federal law that any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration, including where the problem at hand is the construction of the contract itself. Mitsubishi, 473 U.S. at 626, 105 S.Ct. 3346. [U]nless it may be said with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute, the federal courts are obliged to find a particular claim falls within the scope of an arbitration clause. Genesco, 815 F.2d at 847 (quoting S.A. Mineracao da Trindade-Samitri v. Utah Int'l, Inc., 745 F.2d 190 (2d Cir.1984)). While we do not overlook the Supreme Court's emphatic endorsement of freely negotiated and reasonable forum selection clauses, see, e.g., M/S Bremen, 407 U.S. at 13-14, 92 S.Ct. 1907, or our own commitment to enforcing applicable forum clauses, see, e.g., Roby, 996 F.2d at 1362-63, the absence of a congressional policy on forum clauses prompting us to err on the side of coverage is significant. Specifically, we see no reason to presume the parties meant anything other than the dictionary definition of the term: to originate from a specified source. Webster's Third New International Dictionary 117 (1981). This meaning is especially likely where parties wishing to designate a mandatory forum to hear a broader category of disputes are free to do so. See, e.g., M/S Bremen, 407 U.S. at 2, 92 S.Ct. 1907 (Any dispute arising must be treated before the London Court of Justice.); Abbott Labs., 476 F.3d at 422 (designating a mandatory forum for a dispute . . . arising from, concerning or in any way related to this Agreement). Further, we approve of the approach outlined by the Third Circuit, which highlights the language-specific nature of this inquiry and discounts the precedential weight of cases that deal with dissimilarly worded clauses. Wyeth, 119 F.3d at 1075 (Drawing analogy to other cases is useful only to the extent those other cases address contract language that is the same or substantially similar to that at issue.).