The Missouri Supreme Court in A-1 Premium Acceptance, Inc. vs. Meeka
Hunter affirmed a
decision denying arbitration when a chosen arbitration forum was unavailable.
The parties’ agreement, contained in a lender’s contract of adhesion,
stipulated that the National Arbitration Forum (“NAF”) would resolve any
disputes. However, the NAF reached an agreement with the Minnesota Attorney
General and agreed not to arbitrate consumer disputes, including the one at
issue here. The Missouri Supreme Court held that nothing in the Federal Arbitration
Act created an obligation of the court to appoint a substitute arbitration
forum or arbitrator.
However, the Missouri Supreme Court
recognizes several disparate results in footnote four. In Green v. U.S. Cash Advance Ill., LLC, the 7th
Circuit uses § 5 of the FAA to appoint a substitute arbitration
forum reasoning that, “[the contract] makes one thing clear: These parties
selected private dispute resolution. Courts should not use uncertainty in just
how that would be accomplished to defeat the evident choice.” Green v. U.S.
Cash Advance Ill., LLC, 724 F.3d 787, 793 (7th Cir. 2013).
Maurice Wutscher LLP provides a
more detailed discussion
of the procedural history and reasoning.
