Court Opinion

ID: 9513003
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:29:39.067034+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:41.763967
License: Public Domain

Justice O’NEILL,
concurring.
Most members of the Court agree that the Culls substantially invoked the litigation process before requesting arbitration; the point of disagreement is whether Perry Homes adequately proved it suffered prejudice as a result. I join the Court’s opinion, but write separately to note that I believe the proof required to demonstrate prejudice in any given case should be measured by the degree to which the litigation process has been invoked. In some circumstances, a party’s invocation of the judicial process may be so substantial that a court could presume the party resisting arbitration has been prejudiced and the right to arbitration has been waived. In my view, such a presumption may easily be drawn on this record.