AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Anita Jean Rudolph, a resident at Princeton Place nursing home, was allegedly raped and seriously injured by another resident, leading to her death about a month later. Her son had signed a resident admission agreement on her behalf, which included clauses on binding arbitration in disputes related to services provided by the facility. After her death, the personal representative of Rudolph's wrongful death estate filed a complaint for wrongful death and other claims against the nursing home and its operators.

Procedural History

• First Appeal: The district court's original denial of Defendants' motion to compel arbitration was reversed by the Court of Appeals following the decision in Estate of Krahmer ex rel. Peck v. Laurel Healthcare Providers, LLC, which established that a valid arbitration agreement binds the wrongful death estate and beneficiaries. The case was remanded for further consideration of remaining issues.
• Second Appeal: This appeal followed the district court's subsequent denial of Defendants' motion to compel arbitration on remand.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable because the designated arbitrator, AHLA, was unavailable and that the claims for injuries arising from rape were not within the scope of the arbitration agreement.
• Defendants-Appellants: Contended that the district court erred in deciding the issue of arbitrability, arguing that the arbitration agreement's incorporation of AHLA rules, which include a specific delegation provision, clearly and unmistakably delegated the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in deciding the issue of arbitrability instead of deferring to an arbitrator.
• Whether the arbitration agreement is enforceable when the designated arbitrator, AHLA, is unavailable.
• Whether the claims for injuries arising from rape fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

Disposition

• The district court's order denying Defendants' motion to compel arbitration was affirmed.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Kristina Bogardus, with Judges Jennifer L. Attrep and Jacqueline R. Medina concurring, held that:
  The issue of arbitrability was properly decided by the district court because there was not clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties intended to delegate the issue of arbitrability to an arbitrator (paras 7-16).
  The arbitration agreement is unenforceable because AHLA, the designated arbitrator, was unavailable and its designation was integral to the agreement. The court found that the arbitration agreement did not satisfy AHLA Rule 11.5 and, following Rivera v. American General Financial Services, Inc., concluded that the unavailability of AHLA precluded the enforcement of the arbitration agreement (paras 17-29).
  The court did not reach the issue of whether the claims for injuries arising from rape were within the scope of the arbitration agreement due to its conclusion that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable (para 30).