Austin v. U S West, Inc.

7 Citing cases

  1. Dig. Landscape Inc. v. Media Kings LLC

    440 P.3d 1200 (Colo. App. 2018)   Cited 8 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Discussing state and federal cases interpreting the phrase "relating to" as being broad in scope

    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.

  2. In re J. D. Edwards World Solutions Co.

    87 S.W.3d 546 (Tex. 2002)   Cited 113 times
    Holding that fraudulent inducement is a dispute involving the contract itself

    Id. at 95. 926 P.2d 181 (Colo.Ct.App. 1996).Id. at 183 (emphasis added).

  3. Eagle Ridge v. Metropolitan Builders

    98 P.3d 915 (Colo. App. 2004)   Cited 12 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a plaintiffs suit against multiple defendants, less than all of whom were subject to an arbitration agreement, precluded arbitration and required that all claims remain before the trial court for litigation

    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.

  4. Breaker v. Corrosion Control Corp.

    23 P.3d 1278 (Colo. App. 2001)   Cited 10 times
    Finding that an arbitration clause in a sale contract did not apply to a contemporaneously executed employment contract that contained a merger clause because neither contract referenced the other and different mechanisms existed for dispute resolution under the separate contracts

    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.

  5. Rains v. Foundation Health Sys. Life Hlth

    23 P.3d 1249 (Colo. App. 2001)   Cited 32 times
    Rejecting unconscionability challenge to arbitration clause on the ground that Colorado law requires sufficient consideration, not mutuality of remedies

    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."

  6. Gergel v. High View Homes

    996 P.2d 233 (Colo. App. 2000)   Cited 13 times
    Applying "ordinary principles of contract interpretation" to interpret a limited warranty agreement

    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.

  7. In re the Marriage of Popack

    998 P.2d 464 (Colo. App. 2000)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that an agreement to arbitrate before a Beth Din is enforceable under the Colorado Uniform Arbitration Act as long it is not unconscionable and did not result from duress

    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.