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

• The case involves a personal injury claim filed by the estate of B.P. against a nursing home operated by Evangelical Lutheran. B.P., a resident of the nursing home for eight years, suffered a fall and was sexually assaulted by another resident. The estate alleges these incidents resulted from the nursing home's negligent failure to adhere to applicable care standards (para 2).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: Granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendants: Argued that the district court erred by determining the plaintiff specifically challenged the arbitrability provision in their arbitration agreement and that the plaintiff’s common law sexual assault claims are not subject to arbitration (para 1).
• Plaintiff: Contended that the Arbitration Agreement was unenforceable due to being both substantively and procedurally unconscionable. Additionally, argued that the claims regarding sexual assault were not within the scope of the Arbitration Agreement (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the plaintiff specifically challenged the arbitrability provision in the arbitration agreement.
• Whether the plaintiff’s claims related to the sexual assault of B.P. are within the scope of the Arbitration Agreement.

Disposition

• The district court's decision to grant in part and deny in part the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration was affirmed (para 17).

Reasons

• Judge Michael D. Bustamante, retired, sitting by designation, with Judges J. Miles Hanisee and Kristina Bogardus concurring, provided the opinion. The court held that the plaintiff specifically challenged the arbitrability provision by arguing the Arbitration Agreement was both substantively and procedurally unconscionable. The court found the plaintiff's arguments regarding the cost of arbitration and the inclusion of sexual assault claims as grounds for challenging the delegation provision sufficient (paras 8-9). Furthermore, the court agreed with the district court that the claims related to the sexual assault of B.P. were not within the scope of the Arbitration Agreement, emphasizing that even broadly worded arbitration agreements have limits and cannot be interpreted to apply to unforeseeable or outrageous torts unrelated to the agreement's context (paras 11-16).