Complain about a product or service

W. Va. Court Rejects
Forced Arbitration

June 17, 2002

Forced Arbitration • Court Rules Credit Card Arbitration Lawsuit Can Go Forward • Court Throws Out T-Mobile's Forced Arbitration Clause • Mandatory Arbitration Stacks Deck Against Consumers • Appeals Court Shreds AT&T Arbitration Clause • Court Rules for Consumers in Arbitration Challenges • Texas Court Invalidates KB Home's Forced Arbitration • North Carolina Court Strikes Down CitiFinancial's Arbitration • Suit Says Banks Conspired to Force Consumers Into Arbitration • Arbitrator Declares Class-Action Ban Unfair • Homeowners Hung Out To Dry By Arbitration Clauses • Supreme Court Upholds AT&T Customers' Right to Day in Court • AT&T Can't Require Arbitration, Court Rules • Judge Overturns PayPal Arbitration Policy • W. Va. Court Rejects Forced Arbitration • Chevy Chase Ruling Casts Doubt on Arbitration Clauses • Consumers Unwittingly Giving Up Their Right to Sue

In a major consumer rights victory, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals held that a retailer’s mandatory arbitration clause was illegal and unenforceable because it would bar customers from participating in class actions or recovering punitive damages.

The Court’s unanimous 42-page decision, handed down June 14, held that Friedman’s Jewelers, a national jewelry retailer, was violating the law by inserting a mandatory arbitration clause into its form contract with customers as a “scheme or mechanism to shield itself from legal accountability for misconduct.” Trial Lawyers for Public Justice (TLPJ) filed an amicus brief urging the Court to rule as it did.

“This decision should send a powerful message to businesses that are using mandatory arbitration systems to try to avoid liability for their wrongdoing,” said TLPJ attorney Michael J. Quirk, co-counsel on TLPJ’s amicus brief. “Mandatory arbitration provisions will not enforced if they prevent consumers from effectively vindicating all of their rights and claims.”

The case was filed as a consumer class action challenging an alleged “loan packing” scheme in which Friedman’s was adding unnecessary and undisclosed insurance charges to the price of jewelry bought on installment by low income customers. In response to the customers’ class action complaint, Friedman’s moved to have the case ordered into private arbitration based on a provision in its installment sales contract.

The arbitration clause contained a one-sided provision that would have forced customers to arbitrate any of their claims, but would have permitted the company to sue customers for its own claims.

“Friedman’s stacked the deck against its customers by designing an arbitration system that drastically limited the relief available to customers, and then exempting its own claims from this unfair system,” said John W. Barrett of the Barrett Law Firm in Charleston, West Virginia, co-counsel for the successful plaintiffs. “The Supreme Court of Appeals was absolutely right to rule that this arbitration requirement was unconscionable. Friedman’s was wrong to use an arbitration clause to shield itself from legal accountability.”

The Court’s opinion focused on the fact that Friedman’s arbitration provision was part of a contract of adhesion – a grossly imbalanced contract tilted in favor of the company – presented to customers on a non-negotiable basis.

Under West Virginia’s Consumer Credit and Protection Act and controlling precedent, the court held that exculpatory provisions in contracts of adhesion are generally unconscionable and may be enforced only in rare circumstances. In examining the terms of the arbitration clause, the Court held that its prohibitions on punitive damages and class action relief were exculpatory in nature and therefore were “clearly unconscionable.”

The Court further found that the exemption of Friedman’s own claims from arbitration would have been sufficient grounds for finding the arbitration clause unconscionable. Finally, the Court noted that an adhesive contract requiring consumers to arbitrate cannot impose unreasonably burdensome costs that would deter consumers from enforcing their rights to statutory or common-law relief, and that an arbitration system would be presumably unfair if only one party controlled the designation of the private decision-maker.

“James Dunlap and thousands of other customers just like him had no idea whatsoever that they were giving up important legal rights when they bought pieces of jewelry from Friedman’s,” said TLPJ attorney Khalid Elhassan, co-counsel on TLPJ’s amicus brief. “This decision lays down baseline requirements to ensure that consumers faced with mandatory arbitration contracts will continue to be able to hold corporations accountable for their misconduct.”

Back to the top |