And BFN-Greeley, LLC , 141 P.3d at 940, described the substantially similar phrase of "arising out of" as "broad[ ]."¶ 33 And, in Austin v. U S West, Inc. , 926 P.2d 181, 183 (Colo. App. 1996), the division relied on the federal district court's analysis in Lee v. Grandcor Medical Systems, Inc. , 702 F.Supp. 252, 256 (D. Colo. 1988), to conclude that an "arising under" arbitration clause was "sufficiently broad to include claims for fraud in the inducement." (In Lee , the district court decided that claims for fraudulent inducement and tortious interference with business relations "appear[ed]" to "arise under" the arbitration clause, adding that "doubtful" questions about the applicability of arbitration clauses should be resolved in favor of arbitration.
Id. at 95. 926 P.2d 181 (Colo.Ct.App. 1996).Id. at 183 (emphasis added).
We agree with builders that, under the Uniform Arbitration Act, § 13-22-201, et seq., C.R.S. 2003, any doubts about the scope of an arbitration clause should be resolved in favor of arbitration. See Austin v. U.S. West, Inc., 926 P.2d 181 (Colo.App. 1996). However, in City County of Denver v. District Court, supra, the supreme court held that in determining whether an agreement to arbitrate exists, we apply the ordinary principles of contract interpretation, and that holding is dispositive of the issue.
The primary goal is to give effect to the parties' expressed intent. Austin v. U S West, Inc., 926 P.2d 181 (Colo.App. 1996). Ultimately, the parties' reasonable expectations must determine the reach of the arbitration obligation.
To decide whether an arbitration agreement encompasses a dispute, the court must determine whether the factual allegations underlying the claims are within the scope of the arbitration clause, regardless of the legal label assigned to the claims.Austin v. U S West, Inc., 926 P.2d 181 (Colo.App. 1996). InCity County of Denver v. District Court, supra, 939 P.2d at 1364, the supreme court noted that a party may not avoid a contractual arbitration clause merely by casting its complaint in tort, and that "creative legal theories asserted in complaints should not be permitted to undermine the presumption favoring alternative means to resolve disputes."
In determining that intent, the court must examine the wording of the arbitration clause and accord its terms their plain and ordinary meanings. Austin v. US West, Inc., 926 P.2d 181 (Colo.App. 1996). The scope of an arbitration clause must faithfully reflect the reasonable expectations of the parties.
All doubts whether a dispute is arbitrable are to be resolved in favor of arbitration. Austin v. US West, Inc., 926 P.2d 181 (Colo.App. 1996). Applying these principles here, the language of the agreement evidences an unambiguous intent by the parties to arbitrate all matters related to their marriage, present or future. It contains no qualifying or limiting language, and nothing in the agreement indicates that the parties intended to link the agreement to any particular proceeding.