Vickerson v. State Farm Ins. Co.

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: November 20, 2003
• Docket: CUMcv-03-215
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION / CUMBERLAND, ss. DOCKET NO. CV 03-215 |

Scott T. Vickerson, byes

STATE OF MAINE Plaintiffcimpert 3s, Clerk's Office

R COURT

Vv. rgd O - OF ORDER ney @ 2008 DONALD). CAIECHT State Farm Insurance Company, a LAM he RECEIVED Defendant Leo tr 3003

Before this court is Plaintiff, Scott T. Vickerson’s Motion to Compel Arbitration. ACTS

On April 22, 2003, Plaintiff, Scott T. Vickerson, filed a Complaint in this matter. The Defendant responded on May 12, 2003, by filing its answer with this court. Following this, Plaintiff and Defendant began the discovery process. At present, the Defendant has been required to respond to the Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Interrogatories, and to a Request for Product of Documents.

On July 22, 2003, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration. In response, the Defendant filed an Objection to the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Arbitration on August 19, 2003.

DISCUSSION

When the facts upon which waiver is based are not in dispute, the determination

of whether a party has waived its contractual right to arbitration is a question of law for

the court. Saga Communs. Of New England v. Voornas, 2000 ME 156, YT 7, 756 A.2d

954, 958. In addition, Maine has adopted a strong policy favoring the enforcement of

arbitration clauses. See J.M. Huber Corp. v. Main-Erabauer, Inc., 493 A.2d 1048, 1050

(Me. 1985). While courts that have addressed the issue of waiver have not reached an agreement over all the required elements to find a waiver, they do agree that the party seeking to compel arbitration must have undertaken a course of action “inconsistent with its present insistence upon its contractual right to arbitration.” Voornas, 12, 756 A.2d at 959.

In the case at bar, the parties have not undertaken a course of action inconsistent with their present demand for arbitration, as they have not litigated substantial issues going to the merits of the case. See id. (holding that “[t]he relevant question is whether the parties have litigated ‘substantial issues going to the merits’ of the arbitrable claims without any indication that, despite the dispute’s presence in court, a party intends to exercise its contractual right to arbitration.”) (citation omitted)). Plaintiff rightfully asserts that its discovery requests would have transpired regardless of whether there was arbitration or not.

In addition, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Arbitration must succeed because Defendant has not established that it has been prejudiced by the Plaintiff's decision to wait to demand arbitration. “Prejudice . . . refers to the inherent unfairness — in terms of delay, expense, or damage to a party’s legal position — that occurs when the party’s opponent forces it to litigate an issue and later seeks to arbitrate that same issue.” Voornas, J 17, 756 A.2d at 961 (citation and internal quotations omitted). Here, Defendant is unable to establish any inherent unfairness.

First, Defendant has not been substantially delayed by Plaintiff's decision to wait three months from the time of filing its complaint to demand arbitration. Although, the Law Court has held that two and half months of litigation amounted to unfair delay, Voornas, { 18, 756 A.2d at 962, this case is distinguishable from Voornas. The Law

Court in Voornas, emphasized that [iJn those two and a half months, the parties labored under an expedited

schedule, producing as many filings as usually occur over a more

protracted time period. In addition to defending Saga’s two motions [for

injunctive relief], Voornas litigated a motion to dismiss and a motion for

summary judgment, neither of which would have been necessary had

Saga been timely in its demand for arbitration. Id. In the present case, however, litigation has proceeded at a much slower pace and it would not unfairly impact Defendant to compel arbitration. Plaintiff has filed a Complaint and made three discovery requests. Defendant has answered the complaint and responded to those three discovery requests. Although the Plaintiff was late in responding to the Defendant’s discovery requests, none of these activities gives rise to the same type of prejudice in Voornas.

Moreover, Defendant’s legal position has not been damaged by Plaintiff’s

decision to wait to demand arbitration. Plaintiff’s argument that these discovery steps

would have been taken if it had compelled arbitration in the beginning of the case is

convincing. See Voornas, { 12, 756 A.2d 959 (holding that there is only prejudice where the parties have engaged in the substantial litigation of arbitrable claims.) Finally, Defendant has not made a compelling argument that it has incurred substantial

expenses as a result of Plaintiff's decision to wait to demand arbitration.

WHEREFORE, this court GRANTS the Plaintiffs Motion t i)

Dated: November 2 , 2003 Jf I

roland. Cole

Justice/ Superior Court

OF COURTS erland County

). Box 287

Aaine 04112-0287

IF COURTS land County

. Box 287

ine 04112-0287

SETH LEDDY ESQ PO BOX 3065 LEWISTON ME 04243

JOHN WALL ESQ PO BOX 7046 PORTLAND ME 04112