Opinion ID: 885223
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Standard of review and applicable legal authority

Text: ¶ 8 In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, this Court applies the same evaluation as does the district court, based upon Rule 56(c), M.R.Civ.P. Where, as here, the parties have agreed that no material facts are in dispute, the Court must determine whether the district court's conclusion of lawhere, regarding arbitrabilityis correct. Iwen v. U.S. West Direct, 1999 MT 63, ¶ 17, 293 Mont. 512, ¶ 17, 977 P.2d 989, ¶ 17 (1999). ¶ 9 The statute invoked in both issues here presented, § 27-5-114, MCA, was adopted in 1985 as part of the Uniform Arbitration Act, §§ 27-5-111 through 324, MCA. It provides: (1) A written agreement to submit an existing controversy to arbitration is valid and enforceable except upon grounds that exist at law or in equity for the revocation of a contract. (2) A written agreement to submit to arbitration any controversy arising between the parties after the agreement is made is valid and enforceable except upon grounds that exist at law or in equity for the revocation of a contract. Except as permitted under subsection (3), this subsection does not apply to: (a) claims arising out of personal injury, whether based on contract or tort; (b) any contract by an individual for the acquisition of real or personal property, services, or money or credit when the total consideration to be paid or furnished by the individual is $5,000 or less; (c) any agreement concerning or relating to insurance policies or annuity contracts except for those contracts between insurance companies; or (d) claims for workers' compensation. (3) A written agreement between members of a trade or professional organization to submit to arbitration any controversies arising between members of the trade or professional organization after the agreement is made is valid and enforceable except upon grounds that exist at law or in equity for the revocation of a contract. Additionally, we have recognized that both federal and Montana policies favor arbitration. See Holm-Sutherland Co., Inc. v. Town of Shelby, 1999 MT 150, ¶ ¶ 9-10, 295 Mont. 65, ¶ ¶ 9-10, 982 P.2d 1053, ¶ ¶ 9-10 (1999).