Oxford Health Plans: More from the U.S. Supreme Court on the "Silence" in Arbitration Agreements
Introduction In 2010, the United States Supreme Court's decision in Stolt-Nielsen v. AnimalFeeds (" Stolt-Nielsen ") vacated an arbitration panel's decision to require class arbitration, because the contract between the parties provided no basis to conclude those parties agreed to submit themselves (and their disputes) to class arbitration. The decision sparked more than a little discussion about the continued viability of class arbitration. (For this blog's 2010 take on Stolt-Nielsen , click here ). After all, how many arbitration clauses have you seen with language like "The parties agree that the arbitrator shall have the authority to conduct class arbitration"? On June 10th, Oxford Health Plans v. Sutter ( Oxford ) revisited the issue of whether an arbitration agreement authorized class arbitration, and upheld an arbitrator's decision to conduct class arbitration. As is often the case with U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence, those issues