Opinion ID: 1148839
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Marshman

Text: The disposition of this question as to Marshman is controlled by Ex parte Gray, 686 So.2d 250 (Ala.1996). That case involved an action against Crown Pontiac, Inc. (Crown), and Crown's salesman, Shannon Pardue. Id. at 251. The plaintiff alleged that Pardue, as Crown's agent, while acting within the line and scope of his agency, falsely represented the condition of the vehicle Gray was buying. Id. In refusing to direct the trial court to vacate its order staying Gray's action pending arbitration, this Court stated: A party should not be able to avoid an arbitration agreement merely by suing an employee of a principal. Id. In this case, Marshman stands on even better ground that did Pardue in Gray. This is so because Marshman, in fact, signed the Manufactured Home Retail Installment Contract and Security Agreement on behalf of American Housing. In that sense, he is a signatory. The petition is, therefore, denied to the extent it seeks to deny Marshman the benefit of the arbitration provisions.