Arbitration Case Analysis

Listen to this article

The decision overturns the applicable law to the contrary in the Seventh Circuit, most recently applied in J.E. Liss & Co. v. Levin, 201 F.3d 848 (7th Cir. 2000).

As a consequence of that, issues previously decided by the Seventh Circuit concerning arbitrability are now unsettled, rather than firmly established by precedent.

	Links U.S. Supreme Court Related Article Arbitrators should decide timeliness of dispute

For example, Edward D. Jones & Co. v. Sorrells, 957 F.2d 509 (7th Cir. 1992), holds that the six-year time limit may not be tolled by allegations of fraudulent concealment, classifying the time limit as a statute of repose, rather than a statute of limitation.

Given the decision by the Supreme Court that such issues are for arbitrators rather than courts, decisions such as this no longer have binding effect, either, premised as they are upon the assumption that the court had jurisdiction over the issue in the first place.

The decision also has the potential to undermine Seventh Circuit law governing ERISA and the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA). In Robbins v. Chipman Trucking, Inc., 866 F.2d 899 (7th Cir. 1989), the court held that it is an issue for the district court, rather than the arbitrator, to decide whether an employer timely initiated arbitration under the MPPAA.

The continued viability of this holding is subject to question in the wake of Howsam, as well.

– David Ziemer

Click here for Main Story.

David Ziemer can be reached by email.