Opinion ID: 1643072
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Did the Arbitrators Manifestly Disregard the Law Regarding the Statute of Limitations for Fraud?

Text: The News's argument concerning the arbitration panel's alleged manifest disregard of the law relating to the statute of limitations for fraud consists in its entirety of the following: The Panel also manifestly disregarded the statute of limitations applicable to fraud claims in the state of Alabama. In 1995, over seven years ago, The News sent letters to all dealers and distributors (including [the plaintiffs]) concerning the zip code change. (Exhibit A to this brief.) If, as the [plaintiffs] now contend, they believed The News had no right to change any term of the agreement at its expiration (including the area of primary responsibility), that letter should have put them on notice that The News held a different view. The statute of limitations for a fraud claim in Alabama is two years. Ala.Code § 6-2-3 (1975). The first of these cases was filed in 1999. The limitations period for [the plaintiffs'] fraud claims expired well before they commenced an action. We note the absence of citation to caselaw. The letter attached as an exhibit to the News's brief explained to dealers that, when their existing agreements expired, a reorganization of their distribution area along zip-code lines might be necessary to meet the requirements of advertisers. Section 6-2-3 is a tolling statute, under which a claim must not be considered as having accrued until the discovery by the aggrieved party of the fact constituting the fraud, after which he must have two years within which to prosecute his action. The argument presented on this point, devoid of any discussion of the extensive body of caselaw that has developed concerning just what constitutes a discovery of fraud, does not satisfy the stringent standard for establishing a manifest disregard of the law.