Court Opinion

ID: 9685949
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 15:10:38.877417+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:11.838644
License: Public Domain

REYNOLDSON, Chief Justice
(concurring specially).
My views on mandatory arbitration clauses in adhesion contracts were fully expressed in a special concurrence filed in Johnson v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co., 272 N.W.2d 870, 874-81 (Iowa 1978).
The majority of our Cost of Litigation Study Committee recommended adoption of the Uniform Arbitration Act. A minority report was filed. On October 15, 1979, this court issued a “Report of Action of the Supreme Court on the Report of the Cost of Litigation Study Committee” and forwarded it to the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Judiciary and Law Enforcement Committee. We there said:
The court endorsed the recommendation of the Committee implementing the provisions of the Uniform Arbitration Act insofar as it applies to resolution of current and future disputes which the parties have voluntarily and knowingly agreed to submit to arbitration. Disputes under contracts generally regarded by courts as adhesion contracts should be excluded from mandatory arbitration.
Automobile insurance policies are classic adhesion contracts. I am therefore concerned that the following quoted portion of the majority opinion may be misinterpreted to indicate a court position contrary to that expressed to the legislature in the above report:
We conclude that there has been sufficient change in the national legal attitude, both judicial and legislative, toward agreements to arbitrate uninsured motorist claims as to justify revision of our position and enforcement of the agreement in the case before us.
I would delete this and similar language from the majority opinion.
HARRIS, J., joins this special concurrence.