Adkins v. Palm Harbor Homes, Inc.

3 Citing cases

  1. Kisner v. Bud's Mobile Homes

    512 F. Supp. 2d 549 (S.D. Miss. 2007)   Cited 3 times

    See Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. Kennedy, 774 So.2d 540, 544-45 (Ala. 2000) (arbitration agreement is specifically applicable to the parties who executed it, . . . . language of arbitration agreement executed between the purchasers and the seller does not reach the manufacturer; therefore, manufacturer is not bound by terms of the arbitration agreement. First American Title Ins. Corp. v. Silvernell, 744 So.2d 883 (Ala. 1999)); accord Adkins v. Palm Harbor Homes, Inc., 157 F.Supp.2d 1256 (M.D.Ala. 2001) ("arbitration agreement between seller and buyer of mobile home, which by its terms inured to benefit of manufacturer, did not compel buyer to arbitrate claim that manufacturer breached express warranty in violation Magnuson-Moss Act, when warranty made no reference to arbitration limitation on enforcement options."); but see Walton v. Rose Mobile Homes LLC, 298 F.3d 470, 478 (5th Cir. 2002) (Fifth Circuit, in a divided panel decision, reversed district court's order denying manufacturer's motion to compel arbitration holding that the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act permits binding arbitration between purchaser and non-signatory where written arbitration provision is contained in manufacturer's warranty); accord Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. Ard, 772 So.2d 1131, 1134-35 (Ala. 2000) (arbitration provision enforced where manufacturers's express warranty is present in the record.) Based on the present record, the Court is of the opinion that application of equitable estoppel is not warranted

  2. DaimlerChrysler Corporation v. Matthews

    848 A.2d 577 (Del. Ch. 2004)   Cited 5 times
    In DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Matthews, 848 A.2d 577 (Del. Ch. 2004), the Delaware Chancery Court held only that, where one party asserts his right to non-binding arbitration under a contract's specific dispute resolution protocol, and the other party refuses to submit to such arbitration, the refusing party cannot later assert that the other party was required to arbitrate before bringing suit.

    Id. at 624.E.g., Adkins v. Palm Harbor Homes, Inc., 157 F. Supp.2d 1256, 1259-60 (M.D. Ala. 2001) ("In the instant case, therefore, the failure to include all of the relevant terms of the warranty, including that the warranty must be enforced through binding arbitration if an arbitration agreement is entered into at the time of purchase, is violative of the purpose, text, and legislative history of the Magnuson-Moss Act, as interpreted by the Eleventh Circuit. Accordingly . . . Adkins cannot be compelled to arbitrate his written express warranty claims which are brought as a statutory cause of action under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act."), aff'd, 2002 WL 1155424 (11th Cir. Apr. 29, 2002) (TABLE); Ex parte Thicklin, 824 So.2d 723, 730 (Ala. 2002) ("We find the reasoning of the Eleventh Circuit persuasive, and we conclude that Riverchase's failure to disclose in the warranty the requirement that Thicklin arbitrate her claims against it violates the disclosure requirements of the Magnuson-Moss Act. Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion in compelling Thicklin to arbitrate

  3. Howell v. Cappaert Mfr.

    819 So. 2d 461 (La. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 5 times

    Conversely, Ed's and Cappaert cite cases which conclude that Magnuson-Moss does not prohibit binding arbitration: Richardson v. Palm Harbor Homes, 254 F.3d 1321 (11thCir. 2001); Cunningham v. Fleetwood Homes of Georgia, Inc., 253 F.3d 611 (11th Cir. 2001); Adkins v. Palm Harbor Homes, Inc., 157 F. Supp.2d 1256 (M.D.Ala. 2001); In Re American Homestar of Lancaster, Inc. v. Nationwide Housing Systems, Inc., 50 S.W.3d 480 (Tex. 1/10/01) (No. 00-0722); Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. Ard, 772 So.2d 1131 (Ala. 6/2/2000) (No. 1971998). In Richardson, the 11th Circuit held that a state law oral express warranty claim can be subject to binding arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act and is a claim not encompassed by the Magnuson-Moss Act.