Ex parte Discount Foods, Inc.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Alabama held that a broad arbitration provision covering any controversy or claim between the contracting parties encompassed Discount Foods' claims against the signatory, Supervalu, including claims involving intentional conduct unrelated to the underlying contract. The court held, however, that the nonsignatory subsidiary, Sav-A-Lot, lacked standing to enforce the arbitration agreement. The petition for a writ of mandamus was therefore granted in part and denied in part.

Holdings

1. The arbitration provision was clear and broad enough to encompass all of Discount Foods' claims against Supervalu, including claims alleging wrongful intentional conduct unrelated to the contract containing the arbitration provision.
2. Sav-A-Lot could not enforce the arbitration provision because it was neither a signatory nor a party to the Retailer Agreement, and the clause applied to controversies or claims between the contracting parties.
3. The court was not required by the law-of-the-case doctrine to adhere to the prior plurality reasoning in Discount Foods I because compelling circumstances justified reconsideration of a clearly erroneous prior ruling.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the arbitration clause requiring arbitration of '[a]ny controversy or claim arising between the parties' encompassed Discount Foods' claims against Supervalu, including claims based on intentional conduct unrelated to the Retailer Agreement.
2. Whether Sav-A-Lot, a nonsignatory and nonparty to the Retailer Agreement, could enforce the arbitration provision against Discount Foods.
3. Whether mandamus relief was appropriate to correct the trial court's order compelling arbitration.

Disposition

writ_granted