ADR and Mediation

Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendant’s motion to order arbitration of plaintiff’s lawsuit alleging that it was entitled to attorney fees under section 155 of Insurance Code, where defendant had allegedly delayed providing coverage to plaintiff for underlying asbestos claims pursuant to parties’ agreement. Parties’ agreement contained clause that required arbitration for any “dispute” that called for interpretation of said agreement, and instant claim for fees was such dispute.

Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendant’s request to stay instant lawsuit alleging violations of Truth in Lending Act and to direct parties to participate in arbitration pursuant to arbitration clause contained in parties’ loan agreement, where defendant asked for appointment of substitute arbitrator under 9 USC section 5, and where Dist. Ct. found that arbitration clause was void because identity of original arbitrator mentioned in arbitration clause formed integral part of arbitration clause. Dist. Ct. should have appointed substitute arbitrator where: (1) arbitration clause merely required that arbitrator abide by Code of Procedure of Nat’l Arbitration Forum, rather than required that Forum itself conduct arbitration; and (2) record showed that Forum had ceased conducting arbitrations at time of instant request. Ct. further found that identity of arbitrator was not so important so as to void entire arbitration clause and also noted that under Code, parties could seek remedy under 9 USC section 5 if they were denied opportunity to arbitrate dispute before Forum. (Dissent filed.)