ADR and Mediation

Court properly denied Plaintiff's motion to compel arbitration of a counterclaim filed by Defendant credit card holder, whose credit card debt Plaintiff had purchased from credit card issuer. Defendant's counterclaim alleged violation of Collection Agency Act and Consumer Fraud Act because Plaintiff failed to attach assignment documents to its complaint. Defendant was prejudiced by Plaintiff's belated demand for arbitration, and delay in filing discovery responses. Plaintiff has, by its conduct, waived arbitration.(SCHWARM and GOLDENHERSH, concurring.)

Life insurance company filed suit against insurance company and its founder for claims stemming from marketing agreement. That agreement contains no provisions for resolution of dispute/breach by litigation rather than by arbitration. Thus, Plaintiff's claims are subject to mandatory arbitration as provided in agreement. Stay of Plaintiff's litigation is warranted because there may be no need for further litigation after resolution of arbitration. (HOFFMAN and CUNNINGHAM, concurring; HOFFMAN, specially concurring).

Court erred in finding parties' arbitration agreement enforceable and in granting Defendants' motion to compel arbitration. The National Arbitration Forum (NAF) is no longer able to conduct arbitrations involving consumer loans. The unavailability of NAF and absence of 1999 NAF Code leave parties without their designated arbitrator and rules specifically chosen to govern arbitration. Designation of NAF as arbitral forum and term mandating use of 1999 NAF Code were integral to parties' arbitration agreement.(MOORE, concurring; SCHWARM, dissenting.)

Plaintiffs, in the business of identifying, developing and filing qui tam lawsuits, hired 2 Chicago law firms to investigate and prosecute potential claims under Illinois and federal False Claims Acts, and terminated the relationship after Defendants spent several months investigating the claims. After Plaintiffs did not pay Defendants' legal fees, Defendants demanded mediation under ADR provision of fee agreement. Federal Arbitration Act, rather than Illinois law, governed ADR provision due to the fee agreement's ties to interstate commerce. As Plaintiffs filed declaratory judgment action arguing that entire fee agreement was invalid, question of its enforceability must be decided by an arbitrator, and not a court. (NEVILLE and MASON, concurring.)

Plaintiff insurer filed subrogation action to recover payments it made to its insured. Defendant moved to compel arbitration as parties were signatories to Arbitration Forums' Arbitration Agreement. Amendment to Arbitration Agreement unambiguously provides that filing date of insured's claim, rather than event date or date of loss, determines whether claim was subject to compulsory arbitration. Judicial estoppel applies only to inconsistent factual positions, not inconsistent legal positions.(HUTCHINSON and ZENOFF, concurring.)

(Court opinion corrected 8/8/16.) Arbitrator determined, and court affirmed, that Defendant was required to pay Plaintiff severance pay and buy Plaintiff's stocks after his employment was terminated pursuant to the parties employment agreement. Defendants appeal arguing that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by requiring that Defendant purchase Plaintiff's stock. Having conceded that they, along with Plaintiff, placed the question of whether they were required to purchase Plaintiff's stock before the arbitrator and having never questioned the arbitrator's authority to decide the issue, Defendants forfeited the issue of the arbitrator's authority. (ROCHFORD and HALL, concurring.)