Court Opinion

ID: 9627299
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:41:49.631709+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:44.563472
License: Public Domain

EARL B. STOVER, Justice,
concurring.
Currently before the Texas Supreme Court are a number of cases involving enforcement of arbitration agreements in the employer/employee non-subscriber context.
Although arbitration agreements are highly favored by the law and the courts, as exemplified by our recent opinion in In re Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, 18 S.W.3d 867 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 2000) original proceeding [mand. denied], there is a danger in enforcing such agreements carte blanche in the employer/employee non-subscriber context. Under certain circumstances, public policy alone would preclude such enforcement. See Reyes v. Storage & Processors, Inc., 995 S.W.2d 722 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1999, pet. denied). However, in the instant case, the record does not support a public policy argument.
I have in a prior, albeit unpublished dissent in an opinion out of this court, voiced my concern regarding arbitration clauses contained in employee welfare benefit plans (which take the place of workers’ compensation) that contain a provision requiring the injured worker to pay a portion, of arbitration costs up front. Although I have not altered my opinion regarding such clauses, the Texas Supreme Court recently denied the petition for writ of. mandamus filed by the employee in that case. Here, appellant filed a motion to compel H.E.B. to pay the arbitration fee, but there is nothing to indicate the motion was ever ruled on. Therefore, with some reservation, I concur with the majority opinion.