Car Manufacturer Prevails In Effort To Arbitrate Claims Even Though It Was Not A Party To The Agreement

A California Court of Appeal, in Felisilda v. FCA US LLC, has held that a used car purchaser’s claims against the dealer and the manufacturer were all appropriately addressed in arbitration, even though the manufacturer was not a party to the arbitration agreement, whose operative language provided as follows:

“Any claim or dispute, whether in contract, tort, statute or otherwise (including the interpretation and scope of this Arbitration Provision, and the arbitrability of the claim or dispute), between you and us or our employees, agents, successors or assigns, which arises out of or relates to . . . condition of this vehicle, this contract or any resulting transaction or relationship (including any such relationship with third parties who do not sign this
contract) shall, at your or our election, be resolved by neutral, binding arbitration and not by a court action. If federal law provides that a claim or dispute is not subject to binding arbitration, this Arbitration Provision shall not apply to such claim or dispute. Any claim or dispute is to be arbitrated a single arbitrator on an individual basis and not as a class action.”