Opinion ID: 2638692
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Arbitration Agreements Are Favored in Colorado

Text: In Colorado, arbitration is a favored method of dispute resolution. Peterman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 961 P.2d 487, 493 (Colo.1998); see Wales v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 38 Colo.App. 360, 363, 559 P.2d 255, 256 (1976). Our constitution, our statutes, and our case law all support agreements to arbitrate disputes. Colo. Const. art. XVIII, § 3; §§ 13-22-201 to -239, C.R.S. (2006); Peterman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Company, 961 P.2d at 493. Article XVIII, section 3 of the Colorado Constitution provides: It shall be the duty of the general assembly to pass such laws as may be necessary and proper to decide differences by arbitrators, to be appointed by mutual agreement of the parties to any controversy who may choose that mode of adjustment. The powers and duties of such arbitrators shall be prescribed by law. Pursuant to this provision, the General Assembly's enactment of the Uniform Arbitration Act, sections 13-22-201 to 239, provides a uniform statutory framework for arbitration in order to encourage the settlement of disputes. [7] In re Marriage of Popack, 998 P.2d 464, 467 (Colo.App.2000) (All doubts whether a dispute is arbitrable are to be resolved in favor of arbitration.); Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Taylor, 45 P.3d 759, 761 (Colo.App.2001). Colorado's arbitration act explicitly authorizes a cause of action to compel arbitration when a party alleges an enforceable agreement to arbitrate and another person's refusal to arbitrate pursuant to the agreement. (1) On the motion of a person showing an agreement to arbitrate and alleging another person's refusal to arbitrate pursuant to the agreement: (a) If the refusing party does not appear or does not oppose the motion, the court shall order the parties to arbitrate; and (b) If the refusing party opposes the motion, the court shall proceed summarily to decide the issue and order the parties to arbitrate unless it finds that there is no enforceable agreement to arbitrate. (2) On the motion of a person alleging that an arbitration proceeding has been initiated or threatened but that there is not an agreement to arbitrate, the court shall proceed summarily to decide the issue. If the court finds that there is an enforceable agreement to arbitrate, it shall order the parties to arbitrate. § 13-22-207, C.R.S. (2006). Colorado's arbitration act provides for a division of duties between arbitrators and the court: (1) An agreement contained in a record to submit to arbitration any existing or subsequent controversy arising between the parties to the agreement is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable except on a ground that exists at law or in equity for the revocation of a contract. (2) The court shall decide whether an agreement to arbitrate exists or a controversy is subject to an agreement to arbitrate. (3) An arbitrator shall decide whether a condition precedent to arbitrability has been fulfilled and whether a contract containing a valid agreement to arbitrate is enforceable. (4) If a party to a judicial proceeding challenges the existence of, or claims that a controversy is not subject to, an agreement to arbitrate, the arbitration proceeding may continue pending final resolution of the issue by the court, unless the court otherwise orders. § 13-22-206, C.R.S. (2006). In Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc ., the United States Supreme Court restated the basic principles governing arbitration: This Court has determined that arbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit. Although the Court has also long recognized and enforced a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements, it has made clear that there is an exception to this policy: The question of whether 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. 537 U.S. 79, 83, 123 S.Ct. 588, 154 L.Ed.2d 491 (2002) (internal citations omitted). Under Colorado's arbitration act, a valid, enforceable arbitration provision divests trial courts of jurisdiction over all questions that are to be submitted to arbitration, pending the conclusion of arbitration. Hughley v. Rocky Mountain Health Maint. Org., Inc., 927 P.2d 1325, 1330 (Colo.1996). Thus, a trial court order granting a motion to stay the proceedings and to compel arbitration is an interlocutory order that is not immediately appealable. See Fonden v. U.S. Home Corp., 85 P.3d 600, 603 (Colo.App.2003) (citing the United States Supreme Court decision in Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 86, 121 S.Ct. 513, 148 L.Ed.2d 373 (2000), specifically noting that if the district court had entered a stay instead of a dismissal, that order would not be appealable) (internal quotations omitted)).