Court Opinion

ID: 9795387
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:27:59.138877+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:29:51.691048
License: Public Domain

*798Judge CRISWELL
specially concurring.
I agree both with the result and the analysis contained within the majority opinion.
With respect to part IV of that opinion, however, I believe it should be emphasized that the question whether the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., is applicable to the contracts at issue in this case has not been raised by any of the parties. Hence, the further question whether, with respect to an arbitration provision contained within a contract to which that statute applies, the state law concept of "intertwining" may be applied to deny enforcement to such a provision, see G@rohn v. Sisters of Charity Health Services, 960 P.2d 422 (Colo.App. 1998), has likewise not been presented to us, and we have not passed upon either of those questions.