Court Opinion

ID: 6776699
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-21 00:50:53.516363+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:02:48.899725
License: Public Domain

Cook, J.,
concurring in Part I of the opinion and in the judgment. I concur in Part I of the majority opinion only. In Part I of its opinion, the majority demonstrates that the arbitration provision of the insurance contract at issue is insufficient to bind the parties to which it expressly applies (i.e., GROUP, Subscriber, Dependent, and their heirs at law or personal representatives) to arbitrate their claims against CIGNA. Because CIGNA relies exclusively on this defective provision to bind Mr. Branham to arbitrate his loss-of-consortium claim as well as the claims that he pursues on behalf of Mrs. Branham, arbitration of none of the claims can be compelled. Accordingly, I agree with the majority’s disposition of this case. I cannot, however, join in the dicta contained in Part II of the opinion suggesting that, without Mr. Branham’s personal agreement to *392arbitrate, even a properly drafted arbitration provision would have been ineffective to require arbitration of his loss-of-consortium claim.
Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, J., concur in the foregoing opinion.