Court Opinion

ID: 9797504
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:22:25.115414+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:56:27.553503
License: Public Domain

On Denial of Petition for Rehearing,
Chief Justice EISMANN.
Contractor has filed a petition for rehearing asking that this Court remand this case for further proceedings in the district court on the ground that there are contractual defenses to arbitration that should be decided by the district court. The parties agreed to arbitrate claims arising out of or related to their contract, if certain procedural steps have been taken timely.7 Contractor *412contends that their contract “sets forth the steps that must be taken before a claim ripens into an arbitrable dispute,” and that the district court, not arbitrators, should decide whether those steps were taken.
“Arbitrability is a question of law to be decided by the court.” Mason v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 145 Idaho 197, 200, 177 P.3d 944, 947 (2007). However, courts, including this Court, have limited the scope of the question of arbitrability. The vast majority have held that issues of procedural arbitrability, such as whether conditions precedent to an obligation to arbitrate have been met, are for the arbitrators to decide. As the United States Supreme Court explained in Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79, 84-85, 123 S.Ct. 588, 592, 154 L.Ed.2d 491, 497-98 (2002):
Thus “‘procedural’ questions which grow out of the dispute and bear on its final disposition” are presumptively not for the judge, but for an arbitrator, to decide. John Wiley[ & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston], supra, [376 U.S. 543] at 557, 84 S.Ct. 909[, 918, 11 L.Ed.2d 898, 909 (1964) ] (holding that an arbitrator should decide whether the first two steps of a grievance procedure were completed, where these steps are prerequisites to arbitration). So, too, the presumption is that the arbitrator should decide “allegations] of waiver, delay, or a like defense to arbitrability.” Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital [v. Mercury Construction, Corp.], supra, [460 U.S. 1] at 24-25, 103 S.Ct. 927[, 941, 74 L.Ed.2d 765, 785 (1983) ]. Indeed, the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act of 2000 (RUAA), seeking to “incorporate the holdings of the vast majority of state courts and the law that has developed under the [Federal Arbitration Act],” states that an “arbitrator shall decide whether a condition precedent to arbitrability has been fulfilled.” RUAA § 6(c), and comment 2, 7 U.L.A. 12-13 (Supp.2002). And the comments add that “in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, issues of substantive arbitrability ... are for a court to decide and issues of procedural arbitrability, i.e., whether prerequisites such as time limits, notice, laches, estoppel, and other conditions precedent to an obligation to arbitrate have been met, are for the arbitrators to decide.” Id., § 6, comment 2, 7 U.L.A., at 13 (emphasis added).
Although this Court has not addressed whether issues of procedural arbitrability, such as a condition precedent, should be decided by the arbitrators or the court, having the arbitrators decide it would be consistent with our precedents.
“This Court has recognized a strong public policy which favors arbitration. Agreements to arbitrate are encouraged and given explicit recognition as effective means to resolve disputed issues.” Mason v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 145 Idaho 197, 201, 177 P.3d 944, 948 (2007) (citations omitted). In International Association of Firefighters, Local No. 672 v. City of Boise City, 136 Idaho 162, 168, 30 P.3d 940, 946 (2001), this Court wrote, “A court reviewing an arbitration clause will order arbitration unless ‘it may be said with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute.’ Doubts are to be ‘resolved in favor of coverage.’” In Firefighters, we held that whether the particular issue was arbitrable was to be determined by the arbitrators where the parties had agreed to arbitrate grievances, which were defined as involving the interpretation or application of their labor agreement, and “it cannot be said with ‘positive assurance’ that the ... dispute does not ‘concern’ the ‘application and interpretation’ of [the labor agreement].” 136 Idaho at 169, 30 P.3d at 947.
Whether the Trustee has complied with contract procedures that are conditions precedent to the arbitration of particular issues is *413to be determined by the arbitrators. We therefore deny the petition for rehearing.
Justices BURDICK, J. JONES, W. JONES and HORTON concur.

. The arbitration clause in the parties' contract provided as follows:
4.6 ARBITRATION
4.6.1 Any Claim arising out of or related to the Contract, except Claims relating to aesthetic effect and those waived as provided in Sub-paragraphs 4.3.10, 9.10.4 and 9.10.5, shall after decision by the Architect or 30 days after submission of the Claim to the Architect, be subject to arbitration.
4.6.2 Claims shall be decided by arbitration which, unless the parties mutually agree otherwise, shall be in accordance with the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association currently in effect. The demand for arbitration shall be filed in writing with the other party to the Contract and with the American Arbitration Association, and a copy shall be filed with the Architect. 4.6.3A demand for arbitration shall be made within the time limits specified in Subparagraphs 4.4.6 and 4.6.1 as applicable, and in other cases within a reasonable time after the Claim has arisen, and in no event shall it be made after the date when institution of legal or equitable proceedings based on such Claim would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations as determined pursuant to Paragraph 13.7.
*4124.6.4 [Deleted]
4.6.5 Claims and Timely Assertion of Claims. The party filing a notice of demand for arbitration must assert in the demand all Claims then known to that party on which arbitration is permitted to be demanded.
4.6.6Judgment on Final Award. The award rendered by the arbitrator or arbitrators shall be final, and judgment may be entered upon it in accordance with applicable law in any court having jurisdiction thereof.