I remember when I was in law school, and the rights and obligations of a non-party to a contract was very limited. The ability of a non-party to enforce a contract was limited to receiving the right by assignment, or the theory of the third party beneficiary. Now, the Supreme Court in its wisdom has created a right for a party to a contract to enforce the contract against a non-party. Very strange.
In another inevitable arbitration case, Disputing reports that the fifth circuit has decided that a non-party to an arbitration agreement, in fact a party that would have no idea that an arbitration agreement even existed, could be compelled to arbitrate if the state law involved gave the non-party the right to enforce the award, if any.
The logic behind these cases eludes me. In the first case, most state arbitration laws do not anticipate the participation of non-parties. No one drafting the state laws was thinking in terms of enforcement of an arbitration agreement against a non-party. After all, how would any state have the authority to bind persons to contracts that they were not a party to. And that is the essence of this decision. Persons not a party to a contract are bound by the terms of the agreement.
I don't know where this trend will end, but it is interesting to watch. I am also not sure how the states (even Louisiana) can have a scheme to allow enforcement of an award by a non-party against a party to the arbitration agreement. Will the plaintiff need to agree to the arbitration agreement before any award could be enforced?
Basic contract law requires offer, acceptance and consideration. As far as the non-party goes, none of these are present.
The article doesn't say, but I would guess that the arbitration would necessarily occur in a place that is not remotely convenient to the plaintiff. Finally, if Louisiana has statute that allows the injured party to sue the insurer directly, why doesn't that law trump any theory about binding the non-signer to the arbitration agreement.