Missouri Supreme Court Holds Unavailability of National Arbitration Forum Prevents Enforcement of Arbitration Agreement

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.