Arbitration Clause in Residency Agreement Held Applicable to Tort-Based Counterclaims
STV One Nineteen Senior Living, LLC v. Boyd
– Nursing Home / Assisted Living Litigation
Boyd entered into a residency agreement with STV, which operated an assisted living facility. The agreement provided that that STV would furnish Boyd with a private apartment and other related services, including utilities, housekeeping, laundry, meals, maintenance, etc. The agreement also contained an arbitration clause, whereby any dispute arising from or relating to the agreement would be settled by arbitration of the same. Boyd resided at the STV facility from December 2013 to March 2016. STV filed a collections action against Boyd seeking to recover $10,475.28. Boyd filed counterclaims alleging negligence, wantonness, negligent supervision and training, premises liability, and breach of contract. Boyd’s counterclaims were premised on the allegation that STV employees failed to sufficiently supervise certain residents, which resulted in a physical altercation that ended with injuries to Boyd. After STV moved to compel arbitration, Boyd amended her counterclaims, deleting her breach of contract claims. Boyd also filed an opposition to the motion to compel arbitration, arguing that her remaining counterclaims encompassed only tort claims, which did not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement.
The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration after a hearing on the same. After STV’s motion to alter or amend the order was denied, STV appealed. Boyd did not submit an appellate brief. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed and remanded. The Court found that the language of the arbitration provision was not ambiguous – Boyd agreed to arbitrate any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to the residency agreement. The Court cited
Reynolds v. Reynolds
, 689 So. 2d 1 (Ala. 1996) for the proposition that where parties signed an arbitration provision referring to claims “arising out of or relating to” the contract, the provision has a broader application than one which merely refers to claims arising out of the agreement. STV’s duty to supervise employees and provide a safe environment for Boyd were governed by the agreement. Therefore, the Court held that the plain language of the residency agreement and the arbitration provision encompassed Boyd’s claims.
