The Third Circuit just issued a decision that tries to divine the dividing line between challenges to the formation of contracts containing arbitration clauses (which are presumptively for courts), and challenges to the validity of contracts containing arbitration clauses (which are presumptively for arbitrators, if the challenge is to the contract as a whole).  It held that an allegation that a contract is void because the signatory was not authorized to enter into that contract “must be decided by a court.”  SBRMCOA, LLC v. Bayside Resort, Inc., __ F.3d __, 2013 WL 491254 (3d Cir. Feb. 11, 2013).

Related Posts

Two Federal Circuits Find Health Insurance Claims Outside Scope of Arbitration Clauses
May 21, 2014

Because courts apply a presumption of arbitrability when they analyze whether particular claims fall within the scope of an arbitration...

Using Arbitration Clauses in Class Action Settlements
April 9, 2014

Corporations frequently rely on arbitration clauses in contracts to expediently resolve disputes, cut down litigation costs,...

California Court Rules on Mandatory Arbitration Clauses in Trusts
April 9, 2014

There are not many jurisdictions that have weighed in on the issue of whether arbitration clauses should be mandatory in trusts....