Article Title: Utah's Revised Uniform Arbitration Act: a Makeover for the Face of Arbitration

• Publication year: 2003
• Pages: 12-9
• Citation: Vol. 2003 No. 12 Pg. 12-9

Utah Bar Journal Volume 12.

12-9 (2003). Article Title: Utah's Revised Uniform Arbitration Act: A Makeover for the Face of Arbitration

December, 2003

Last Update: 15/11/04

Article Title: Utah's Revised Uniform Arbitration Act: A Makeover for the Face of Arbitration

Author: Kent B. Scott & James B. Belshe

Article Type

Utah Law Developments

Article

INTRODUCTION

This article will discuss the provisions of the recently adopted Revised Uniform Arbitration Act (RUAA) the Utah Legislature passed in 2002. The RUAA became effective in Utah on May 15, 2003. The RUAA is codified in UTAH CODE ANN subsectionsubsection 78-31a-101 through 131. Its provisions will apply to all contracts that are entered into after May 6, 2002, and to contracts made before May 6, 2002 by agreement of the parties. As of November, 2003, the RUAA has been adopted by eight states(fn1) and is currently being considered by eleven others

Utah's RUAA was patterned after the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act that was approved by the National Conference of Commissioners of Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) in August, 2000. The NCCUSL version of the Revised Uniform AArbitration Act was finalized after a four-year drafting period. This project was undertaken to bring arbitration law into line with developments in the field of arbitration since the original Uniform Arbitration Act was approved in 1955. The RUAA has been endorsed by the American Bar Association, the National Academy of Arbitrators, the American Arbitration Association, and others.(fn2) The Revised Uniform AArbitration Act was adopted by the NCCUSL without a single negative vote being cast by the Uniform Law Commissioners.(fn3)

II. HISTORY

The original Uniform Arbitration Act ("UAA") was promulgated by the NCCUSL in 1955. Thereafter, the UAA was enacted by 49 jurisdictions. Utah did not adopt the UAA until 1985.

The 1925 United States Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") was enacted by Congress in 1925 and applied to all contracts involving interstate commerce. The FAA and the Utah Uniform Arbitration Act have a number of similar provisions. The old Uniform Arbitration Act, the Federal Arbitration Act, and the new Revised Uniform Arbitration Act were created to ensure the enforcement of pre-dispute arbitration agreements. The limited grounds for vacating or modifying awards are similar in all three acts.

Like the current Federal Arbitration Act, Utah's old Uniform Arbitration Act deals mainly with such basic matters as the enforcement of arbitration agreements, appointment of arbitrators, compelling attendance of witnesses, limited discovery rights and review of awards. The old statute left much to be worked out in the courts, the rules of arbitration administration organizations, and the agreements of parties.

The RUAA is more complete and comprehensive of arbitration practice and procedure. It was created to codify case law addressing the arbitration process, and to resolve ambiguities in and questions raised by the old UAA. The new Utah Revised Uniform Arbitration Act deals with such matters as arbitrability, provisional remedies, consolidation of proceedings, arbitrator disclosure, arbitrator immunity, discovery, subpoenas, pre-hearing conferences, dispositive motions, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other remedies which could be the subject of an arbitration award.

III. PUBLIC POLICY FAVORING ARBITRATION

Utah's public policy favors arbitration. The Utah Uniform Arbitration Act provides for the arbitration of pre-existing disputes (by agreement of the parties) as follows:

"[o]n motion of a person showing an agreement to arbitrate and alleging another person's refusal to arbitrate pursuant to the agreement: ... (b) if the refusing party opposes the motion, the court shall proceed summarily to decide the issue and order the parties to arbitrate unless it finds that there is no enforceable agreement to arbitrate."(fn4)

The Act also provides: "[i]f the court orders arbitration, the court on just terms shall stay any judicial proceeding that involves a claim subject to the arbitration. If a claim subject to the arbitration is severable, the court may limit the stay to that claim."(fn5)

The Utah Supreme Court has a well established history in defining a public policy that liberally encourages the broad enforcement of extrajudicial dispute resolution agreements that have been voluntarily entered into. See eg. Central Florida Investments, Inc. v. Parkwest Associates, 440 P.3d 599 (Utah 2002); Intermountain Power Agency v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 961 P.2d 320, 325 (Utah 1998); Buzas Baseball, Inc. v. Salt Lake Trappers, Inc., 925 P.2d 941, 946 (Utah 1996); Allred v. Educators Mut. Ins. Ass'n, 90 P.2d 1263, 1265 (Utah 1996); Docutel Olivetti Corp. v. Dick Brady Systems, Inc., 731 P.2d 475 ( Utah 1986); Lindon City v. Engineers Constr. Co., 636 P.2d 1070 (Utah 1981).

Federal public policy also favors arbitration of pre-existing disputes. Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act is similar to the new Utah Revised Uniform Arbitration Act and reads in relevant part as follows: "... an agreement in writing to submit to arbitration, an existing controversy arising out of such content shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract."(fn6)

In Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, the Supreme Court of the United States...