Court Opinion

ID: 9938891
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 19:04:09.031078+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:30.904245
License: Public Domain

I would grant Sharon Thicklin's application for rehearing because, for the reasons I articulated in my dissent in Selma Medical Center, Inc. v. Fontenot, 824 So.2d 668, 676 (Ala. 2001), I do not believe her claims in this case are subject to arbitration. I therefore dissent from the majority's decision to overrule Thicklin's application. *Page 739 
For the same reasons that I dissent from the majority's denial of Thicklin's application for rehearing, I concur in the result as to its decision to overrule the defendants' applications for rehearing. Specifically, I concur with the holdings in the majority opinion (1) that arbitration should not be compelled as to Thicklin's express-warranty claim and her Magnuson-Moss Act claims, and (2) that the provision in the arbitration agreement prohibiting an award of punitive damages is void.