Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 11-15-2024
Case Style:
Hudgins, et al. v. Lowe Construction and Development, LLC, et al.
Case Number: A24A1647
Judge: Not Available
Court: Superior Court, Walton County, Georgia
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Monroe, Georgia civil litigation breach of contract lawyers represented the parties in a construction dispute.
As part of their sales transaction, the Hudginses executed a New Construction Purchase and Sale Agreement ("the Purchase Agreement") relating to the sale of Lot 9 and construction of a new home on the property. Paragraph 12 (b) of the contract addressed the parties' agreement to arbitrate disputes, providing in pertinent part:
b. Arbitration: All claims arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the alleged acts or omissions of any or all the parties hereunder shall be resolved by arbitration in accordance with the Federal Arbitration Act 9 U.S.C. § 1 et. seq. and the rules and procedures of the arbitration company selected to administer the arbitration. Upon making or receiving a demand for arbitration (which shall only be made with respect to a construction defects claim after following the procedures described in OCGA § 8-2-38[1] has been followed [sic]), the parties shall either: (1) engage the arbitration company, if any, identified elsewhere herein to conduct the arbitration; or (2) if no such arbitration company has been selected, work together in good faith to select a mutually acceptable arbitration company with offices in Georgia to administer and conduct the arbitration....
Martin executed the same agreement with respect to her purchase of Lot 8. At some point following that purchase, Lowe Construction built a detached garage for Martin and her husband, and it also installed a septic drain field for their use. According to the Hudginses, however, Lowe Construction wrongfully placed the Martin garage and septic field entirely within the boundaries of their property (Lot 9). Based on that placement, the Hudginses sued the appellants, Martin, her husband, and a trust to which the Martin property had been transferred,[2] alleging claims for ejectment, trespass, nuisance, negligence, breach of warranty of title, fraud, punitive damages, and attorney fees.
The Federal Arbitration Act "reflects a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration, and any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration[.]" SunTrust Bank v. Lilliston, 302 Ga. 840, 842 (809 S.E.2d 819) (2018) (citation and punctuation omitted). Ultimately,
there is a presumption of arbitrability in the sense that an order to arbitrate the particular grievance should not be denied unless it may be said with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute. Doubts should be resolved in favor of coverage.
Waffle House, 343 Ga.App. at 109 (3) (citation and punctuation omitted).
The arbitration clause in this case extends to "[a]ll claims arising out of or relating to [the Purchase] Agreement or the alleged acts or omissions of any or all the parties hereunder[.]" Construing a similar provision, we have characterized such language as "the broadest language the parties could reasonably use to subject their disputes to [arbitration], including collateral disputes that relate to the agreement containing the clause." Wise v. Tidal Constr. Co., 261 Ga.App. 670, 672-73 (1) (583 S.E.2d 466) (2003) (citation and punctuation omitted). We have also noted that "nothing more than a slight causal connection is required to show that a claim arose out of a specified relationship set forth in a contract." Wedemeyer v. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp., 324 Ga.App. 47, 52 (2) (749 S.E.2d 241) (2013) (citation, punctuation, and emphasis omitted); see also Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. New Freedom Mtg. Corp., 285 Ga.App. 22, 30 (2) (645 S.E.2d 536) (2007) ("Under Georgia law, where a contract provides that a loss must arise out of a specified act, it does not mean proximate cause in the strict legal sense but instead encompasses almost any causal connection or relationship.") (citation and punctuation omitted).
Lowe Constr. & Dev. v. Hudgins, A24A1647 (Ga. App. Nov 15, 2024)
Outcome: Reversed.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: