Opinion ID: 2008738
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Charge of Fraud in the Inducement.

Text: Our analysis is not altered by Hercules' allegation of fraud in the inducement of the Agreement and of its arbitration clause. We recognize that if there is a claim of fraud in the inducement of the arbitration clause itself  an issue which goes to the `making' of the agreement to arbitrate  the ... court may proceed to adjudicate it. Prima Paint v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 395, 404, 87 S.Ct. 1801, 1806, 18 L.Ed.2d 1270 (1967); see also Moseley v. Electronic & Missile Facilities, Inc., 374 U.S. 167, 83 S.Ct. 1815, 10 L.Ed.2d 818 (1963). We are also mindful of the fact that, if the claim of fraud were to be established with respect to the arbitration clause itself, then there would be no valid agreement to arbitrate, and the policies favoring arbitration would not apply. The trial judge, however, held the pleading of the claim of fraud in the inducement of the arbitration clause insufficient. He based his referral to arbitration on that determination. Since the consequence of his assessment of the pleading was an order staying the case pending arbitration, and since such an order is not appealable on an interlocutory basis either under Gulfstream or under Brandon, the fact that Hercules grounded its attack on a claim of fraud is immaterial. [16]