In re CITGO Petroleum Corporation and Stoneburner-Verrett Electric Company, Inc.

Summary

The Texas Court of Appeals considered a mandamus petition seeking to compel arbitration of an on-the-job personal injury dispute. The court held that Citgo Petroleum Corporation was an intended third-party beneficiary of the employee's arbitration agreement with Pat Tank and had not waived arbitration, but Stoneburner-Verrett Electric Company failed to establish entitlement to enforce the agreement. The court conditionally granted Citgo's petition and denied Stoneburner's request.

Holdings

1. Pat Tank assented to and was bound by the arbitration agreement because its employment of Rose, together with the president's affidavit explaining the company's policy and the missing signature, demonstrated acceptance by conduct.
2. Citgo was an intended third-party beneficiary of the Dispute Resolution Agreement and could enforce its arbitration provision.
3. Stoneburner-Verrett did not establish that it was an intended third-party beneficiary and therefore was not entitled to mandamus relief compelling arbitration.
4. Citgo did not waive arbitration because the Roses failed to show that Citgo substantially invoked the judicial process to their prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Pat Tank assented to the arbitration agreement despite not signing it.
2. Whether Citgo, a nonsignatory customer of Pat Tank, was an intended third-party beneficiary entitled to enforce the arbitration agreement.
3. Whether Stoneburner-Verrett established that it was an intended third-party beneficiary entitled to enforce the arbitration agreement.
4. Whether Citgo waived arbitration by substantially invoking the judicial process and causing prejudice.

Disposition

writ_granted