X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Dr. Joel Safer, a dentist nearing retirement, received a solicitation from William Nelson, CEO of Nelson Financial Group Inc., to attend a weekend investment seminar for dentists. Safer and his wife, Melanie Safer, attended the seminar and met privately with William Nelson to discuss their portfolio and financial-planning needs. That same day, the Safers entered into several agreements with Nelson Financial regarding the management of their assets. The agreements included an arbitration agreement for dispute resolution. Within about three years, the total value of the assets that the Safers had invested with Nelson had fallen by 50 percent. The Safers filed suit against William Nelson and Nelson Financial, alleging that Nelson recommended investments for them that were extremely aggressive and inappropriate for a couple close to retirement. Nelson and Nelson Financial filed a motion for order staying action pending arbitration and compelling arbitration. In its order denying the motion, the district court found that the parties’ advisory agreement, which pertained to investment advice, was separate and distinct from their new account information forms, which pertained to the execution of that advice. According to the district court, because the parties entered into two separate agreements for two separate services rendered, the arbitration clause found in the new account information forms did not apply to disputes regarding the advisory agreement. Nelson and Nelson Investments appealed. HOLDING:Reversed. The parties agree that each of the new account information forms contains a valid arbitration clause. The parties disagree, however, about whether the scope of this arbitration clause encompasses the Safers’ current dispute with Nelson. In determining whether the Safers’ claims are covered by the arbitration agreement, the court notes that it must decide whether “it can be said with positive assurance that [the] arbitration clause is not susceptible of any interpretation which would cover the dispute at issue.” Because the court finds that the arbitration clause can be interpreted in such a way as to cover the plaintiffs’ claims, and because the court disagrees with the Safers’ contention that their claims pertain solely to the provision of financial advice and are governed solely by the terms of the advisory agreement, the court holds that the scope of the arbitration clause covers the Safers’ allegations. The court points out that the advisory agreement specifically states that it “terminates upon the delivery of the Written Financial Plan.” Nelson allegedly provided the Safers with this written financial plan on the weekend of the investment seminar. Any allegations in the complaint relating to events occurring after the seminar, therefore, would not be covered by the terms of the advisory agreement. The Safers, however, clearly allege in their complaint that they were harmed by actions taken by Nelson long after that time. Also, the court notes that the Safers make allegations in their complaint that are outside of the scope of the advisory agreement, but are clearly covered by the language of the arbitration clause found in the new account information forms pertaining to disputes regarding an “order or transaction.” Additionally, the court’s review of the record indicates that the advisory agreement and the new account information form signed by Joel Safer on the day after the seminar are related to each other and collectively constituted one transaction. The court holds that that when agreements are interdependent and exist to further a single goal, an arbitration clause in one of the agreements “reach[es] all aspects of the parties’ relationship,” including disputes that might arise out of the other agreement. The court concludes that to separate the advisory agreement from the new account information forms after the fact overlooks this reality about the Safers’ dealings with Nelson on the day after the seminar and drives an artificial wedge into the integrated transaction between them. OPINION:King, C.J.; King, C.J., Davis and Fitzwater, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.