Elders In Both Cases . . .
Arbitration And An Elder Abuse Act Case.
Dougherty v. Roseville Heritage Partners, et al., C087224 (3rd Dist. 3/30/20) (Krause, Murray, Hoch) is another of the many elder care facility cases in which the enforceability of an arbitration clause is at issue. Here, the trial court denied the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of claims brought on behalf of a 89-year old man, and the Court of Appeal affirmed.
The arbitration provision was held to be procedurally unconscionable, and a contract of adhesion, because the provision was part of 70 pages of documentation presented to the patient’s daughter at the time of admission, she was hurried, and she conveyed to the facility’s administrator that her father, who was suffering from dementia, had no alternative to the facility.
The Court of Appeal also held that the provision was substantively unconscionable because it limited discovery. While a limitation of discovery is not per se substantively unconscionable, the Court explained that it could be where statutory rights were at issue, as with the Elder Abuse Act, which provides for attorney’s fees and costs for a winning plaintiff, and which also requires proof by clear and convincing evidence.
The most important teachings to be gleaned from this case are that a single factor that may not establish unconscionability in all contexts may do so when combined with other factors, and that the denial of discovery where statutory rights are involved may support substantive unconscionability.
Arbitration And A Consumer Case.
In Dennison v Rosland Capital LLC, B295350 (2/8 4/1/20) (Grimes, Bigelow, Stratton), an 82-year old man, responded to a television ad, eventually purchased nearly $200,000 of gold and silver from Rosland Capital, but allegedly the purchases were worth considerably less than the price paid. The seller moved to compel arbitration, the trial court denied the motion, and the Court of Appeal affirmed.
The most interesting issue concerned whether there was an effective delegation to an arbitrator of decisions about the scope or applicability of the arbitration agreement, such that the court should have been the decision maker. The Court of Appeal explained that the contract contained a severability clause providing that a court of competent jurisdiction might excise an unconscionable provision. Given that provision, there is no clear and unmistakable delegation of authority to the arbitrator to determine if the provision is unconscionable.
The seller of precious metals argued that with a lifetime of experience and years in the military, Mr. Dennison could have negotiated the contract. To which the Court of Appeal replied: “An 82-year-old consumer who calls a telephone number displayed in a television ad to make his first-ever investment in the highly volatile precious metals market, no matter how sophisticated he may be in other matters, cannot reasonably be expected to consider negotiating the terms of a form contract in such tiny print it cannot be read without a magnifying glass.” Besides, in the context of consumer contracts, our Supreme Court has never required a complainant to first show that it tried to negotiate the contract as a prerequisite to establishing unconscionability.
Comments