Opinion ID: 1826077
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Summary and Implications

Text: The appellants argue that the rationale of Davis abrogates the reasoning of Cunningham and thus of Thicklin. Because Davis specifically cites Cunningham without disapproval, [3] this assertion requires closer examination of the rationale of Cunningham. The first prong of Cunningham's holding was at least implicitly premised upon the close relationship, if not the outright synonymity, between arbitration and informal dispute-settlement mechanisms, for the purposes of the disclosure requirements of the Magnuson-Moss Act and, consequently, of the single-document rule. Davis wholly repudiates such a notion, demonstrating that nothing in the text, legislative history, or purposes of the Magnuson-Moss Act indicates that arbitration was in any way considered or accounted for in crafting the Magnuson-Moss Act, including the provisions in the Act for informal dispute-settlement mechanisms. We therefore read Davis to discredit the assumption unavoidably present in Cunningham that arbitration, for purposes of determining whether there was sufficient disclosure, is a type of informal dispute-settlement mechanism and therefore to seriously undercut the first aspect of the Cunningham analysis. In addition, we view the other prong of Cunningham's rationale  that the underlying purposes of the Magnuson-Moss Act would be frustrated by enforcement of any arbitration clause not contained within the warranty itself  as similarly without support. As explained above, the Cunningham court found no conflict between arbitration and the actual purpose of the Magnuson-Moss Act of enhancing information, instead finding a conflict only with the notion of clear and concise warranties. 253 F.3d at 622. Also, the Cunningham court found a conflict with the Magnuson-Moss Act's purpose of fostering competition only by viewing arbitration agreements with hostility, a perspective the United States Supreme Court rejected in Mitsubishi Motors. This purpose analysis prong of Cunningham thus wavers upon close scrutiny and, with it, the entire holding of that case. In short, we consider a key feature of the rationale of Cunningham significantly undermined by Davis, and the remainder of the Cunningham rationale insufficient to justify its holding, and we no longer regard Cunningham as reliable authority on the question whether a stand-alone arbitration agreement may be used to compel arbitration. The Magnuson-Moss Act requires disclosure in the warranty itself only to the extent required by the rules of the [FTC], and the FTC has seen fit to require disclosure of required resort to an informal dispute-settlement mechanism, not the completely separate process of binding arbitration. Because our decision in Thicklin on that question relied solely upon Cunningham, and additionally because no decision since Thicklin has expressly relied upon its holding on that issue, the principle of stare decisis does not weigh so heavily against a reconsideration of whether Thicklin was correctly decided. Therefore, we overrule Thicklin to the extent it holds that an arbitration agreement must be contained within a written warranty. In their briefs, Jackson, Shoultz, and the Dunigans correctly point out that this Court's standard of review requires us to determine first whether the movant has proved the existence of a valid contract calling for arbitration. [4] Each plaintiff argues that the movant in his or her case (whether Patriot or Southern Energy) cannot meet this burden because, the plaintiff says, the contract calling for arbitration  the arbitration agreement  is invalid in that it is not disclosed in the warranty. This failure to disclose, assert the plaintiffs, violates the single-document rule, as interpreted by Thicklin. Having overruled Thicklin, however, we are unconvinced by the plaintiffs' argument; rather, we conclude that the arbitration agreements upon which the motions to compel were based are valid and that both Patriot and Southern Energy have met their respective burdens. Under our standard of review, once a movant has met its burden, the burden then shifts to the nonmovant to demonstrate that the contract is either invalid or inapplicable. Neither Jackson, Shoultz, nor the Dunigans have anticipated the possibility that this Court might find that the burden has shifted to them; thus they have not endeavored to argue that they have met their burden. Consequently, we are obliged to conclude that the plaintiffs have in fact not met the burden that shifted to them, and we therefore conclude that the motions to compel filed by both Patriot and Southern Energy are due to be granted and that the trial court erred in denying those motions. Because the trial court erred in denying Patriot's and Southern Energy's motions to compel arbitration, albeit in reliance on our holding in Ex parte Thicklin, we reverse the trial court's orders. As noted above, we overrule Ex parte Thicklin to the extent it conflicts with our decision today, and additionally, because Thicklin overruled the holding of Cavalier Manufacturing, Inc. v. Jackson on a similar issue, we hereby reinstate the precedential value of that decision, to the extent that it does not conflict with this decision.