09-4051 Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Broadspire Management Services, Inc.

Listen to this article

Civil Procedure
Arbitration

Questions over the sufficiency of notice is a question for the arbitrator rather than the district court.

“Broadspire cites our decision in R.J. Corman Derailment Services, LLC v. International Union of Operating Engineers, 422 F.3d 522, 528 (7th Cir. 2005), in support of its argument to the contrary, but that case is inapposite. In Corman, the parties disputed whether a grievance was timely under the terms of an expired collective bargaining agreement. 422 F.3d at 527. The dispute involved a question of ‘whether there was an agreement to arbitrate this set of grievances at all,’ a fundamental question of arbitrability properly answered by a court. Id.; see Howsam, 537 U.S. at 84. The dispute in this case is different, and falls on the other side of the Howsam divide for a key reason. Here, there is no dispute as to the existence of an agreement to arbitrate itself. Instead, this is a procedural dispute over preconditions to that arbitration. See Employers Ins., 443 F.3d at 577 (procedural question of arbitrability was for arbitrator because it “does not involve whether Wausau and Century are bound by an arbitration clause or whether the arbitration clause covers the Aqua-Chem policies.”); see also Dealer, 588 F.3d at 887. For us to accept Broadspire’s argument ‘would require a court to delve too deeply into questions of the parties’ compliance with the terms of the agreement, which are more properly for the arbitrator.’ Corman, 422 F.3d at 528.”

Affirmed.

09-4051 Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Broadspire Management Services, Inc.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Leinenweber, J., Williams, J.

Full Text