High Arbitration Fees Prove Costly to Defendant

High Arbitration Fees Prove Costly to Defendant

A recent decision by the Arizona Court of Appeals underscores the importance of keeping consumer arbitration agreements consumer friendly. In Clark v. Renaissance West, LLC, [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers], the court affirmed the trial court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration because the plaintiff demonstrated that it would cost approximately $22,800 in arbitrator’s fees to arbitrate the case. The court held that the arbitration agreement was substantively unconscionable because it prevented the plaintiff, an 88-year-old veteran who lived on a fixed income, from prosecuting his negligence claims against the nursing home defendant.

Most consumer arbitration agreements in use today provide that a nationwide organization, such as the American Arbitration Association or JAMS, will administer the arbitration. Those administrators have adopted special consumer fee schedules that cap the consumer’s share of the administrative and arbitrator’s fees at a few hundred dollars. The company pays the remainder of the fees. However, in Clark, the arbitration agreement was not subject to any administrator rules, and it required the parties to contribute equally to payment of the arbitrator’s fees.

Companies might be emboldened after the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurants [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers], and AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers], to cut back on the consumer friendliness of their arbitration agreements. We counsel our clients not to do so. For ,example, in Italian Colors, the Supreme Court left open the possibility that an arbitration agreement that made “filing and administrative fees attached to arbitration … so high as to make access to the forum impracticable” might not pass muster.

Although a plaintiff faces a rigorous evidentiary burden to prove that arbitration costs are “too expensive,” Clark shows that such an argument can succeed. Therefore, companies should continue to keep their arbitration agreements as consumer friendly as possible.

Ballard Spahr’s Consumer Financial Services Group pioneered the use of pre-dispute arbitration provisions in consumer financial services agreements. It is nationally recognized for its guidance in structuring and documenting new consumer financial services products, its experience with the full range of federal and state consumer credit laws, and its skill in litigation defense and avoidance.

The CFS Group also produces CFPB Monitor, a blog that focuses exclusively on important Consumer Financial Protection Bureau developments. To subscribe to the blog, use the link provided to the right.

For more information, please contact CFS Practice Leader Alan S. Kaplinsky at 215.864.8544 or kaplinsky@ballardspahr.com, or Mark J. Levin at 215.864.8235 or levinmj@ballardspahr.com.


Copyright © 2013 by Ballard Spahr LLP.
http://www.ballardspahr.com/
(No claim to original U.S. government material.)

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission of the author and publisher.

This alert is a periodic publication of Ballard Spahr LLP and is intended to notify recipients of new developments in the law. It should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general informational purposes only, and you are urged to consult your own attorney concerning your situation and specific legal questions you have.

For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site