Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Logan & Kanawha Coal Co. v. Detherage Coal Sales, LLC, 4th Cir. (2013)
Logan & Kanawha Coal Co. v. Detherage Coal Sales, LLC, 4th Cir. (2013)
No. 12-1128
CO.,
LLC,
West
Virginia
limited
Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
DETHERAGE
company,
COAL
SALES,
LLC,
Kentucky
limited
liability
Defendant Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
Joseph R. Goodwin,
District Judge. (2:11-cv-00342)
Argued:
February 1, 2013
Decided:
Because we
I.
On March 9, 2010, L&K faxed a purchase order draft to Bill
Detherage, the sole member and operator of Detherage Coal Sales,
LLC (DCS), proposing to purchase 10,000 tons per month of Alma
Seam coal from DCS over the six months from April to September
2010.
consisted of two pages and included with the cover sheet a onepage purchase order, which stated that ALL TERMS & CONDITIONS
ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES ARE INTO [sic] AND MADE A PART OF THIS
CONTRACT.
J.A.
24.
In
fact,
no
following
pages
were
term, changing 10,000 tons per month to 7,000 tons per month,
signed the purchase order, and sent it back to L&K.
15,
2010,
L&K
returned
the
signed
purchase
On March
order
J.A. 78.
(the
The
pages
containing
the
referenced
terms
and
conditions.
DCS never informed L&K that it had not received the terms
and
conditions
inquiry
about
conducted
referenced
them.
business
with
on
the
purchase
Detherage,
L&K
order
however,
through
other
and
had
made
no
previously
entities
he
owned
from
contained
contract
an
General
identical
disputes
be
terms
and
conditions
arbitration
resolved
provision
pursuant
to
to
Standard--
directing
the
rules
that
and
(through
its
attorney)
responded
3
in
writing
that
it
had
DCS
DCS subsequently
did
not
appear
at
that
hearing
but
filed
motion
to
arbitration
panel,
over
the
dissent
of
DCSs
designated
issued
an
award
in
L&Ks
favor
of
approximately
$2.7
million.
L&K
Confirm
subsequently
Arbitration
Arbitration Award.
filed
Award;
in
federal
DCS
filed
court
a
Motion
Motion
to
to
Vacate
II.
The
issues
before
us
are
(1)
whether
L&Ks
arbitration
district court de novo and its factual findings for clear error.
See Raymond James Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Bishop, 596 F.3d 183, 190
(4th Cir. 2010).
A.
We first consider whether, under West Virginia law, 1 the
Contract
L&Ks
incorporated
Standard
by
terms
reference
and
the
arbitration
conditions.
Although
clause
this
in
coal
Generally, if the
Virginia
incorporated
has
by
recognized
reference
that
into
separate
contract,
writings
see
Arts
may
be
Flower
Shop, Inc. v. Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co. of W. Va., Inc., 413
S.E.2d 670, 673-74 (W. Va. 1991), but has not, as far as we can
tell, articulated the requirements for effective incorporation
by reference.
[the]
States
public
policy.
Talkington
v.
Atria
Reclamelucifers Fabrieken BV, 152 F.3d 254, 260 (4th Cir. 1998)
(quoting St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Jacobson, 48 F.3d
778,
783
(4th
Cir.
1995)).
We
therefore
consider
general
makes
identity
of
clear
the
reference
separate
to
document
separate
may
be
document,
the
ascertained,
and
F.3d 440, 447 (3d Cir. 2003); see also 11 Williston on Contracts
30:25 (4th ed. 2011).
See Standard
the
same
token,
[i]t
is
appropriate
to
require
failure
to
object
to
the
arbitration
terms
of
[the
part
of
the
contractual
agreement.).
And
where
the
ongoing
business
incorporation
may
be
relationship
easier.
See
or
course
Stedor
of
dealing,
Enters.,
Ltd.
v.
Armatex, Inc., 947 F.2d 727, 733 (4th Cir. 1991) (Where, as
here, a manufacturer has a well established custom of sending
purchase order confirmations containing an arbitration clause, a
buyer who has made numerous purchases over a period of time,
receiving in each instance a standard confirmation form which it
either signed and returned or retained without objection, is
bound
by
the
arbitration
provision.
(internal
quotations
omitted)).
The district court held that L&Ks arbitration clause was
not incorporated into the Contract by reference because it had
not been clearly referenced and identified in such terms that
its identity may be ascertained beyond doubt.
Coal Co. v. Detherage Coal Sales, LLC, 841 F. Supp. 2d 955, 961
(S.D. W.
Va.
2012)
(internal
quotations
omitted).
This
was
&
CONDITIONS
statement
does
ON
not
THE
FOLLOWING
distinguish
PAGES.
between
Because
the
general
and
[L&Ks]
is
not
clear
incorporate.
Id.
which
document
the
statement
seeks
to
and
conditions,
did
not
incorporate
the
arbitration
clause.
DCS
echoes
this
reasoning,
acknowledging
that
only
two
of
further
those
two
explains
following
pages,
versions
the
that
because
it
understood
Contract
the
the
referenced.
Contract
contained
reference
to
DCS
no
governing
effect
on
the
transaction.
Id.
at
8.
Finally,
DCS
Bill
Detherages
personal
knowledge
of
the
arbitration
clause, derived from his prior dealings with L&K, should not be
imputed to DCS.
Cas. & Sur. Co., 381 F.2d 245, 250 (4th Cir. 1967) (The general
rule is that the knowledge of an officer of the corporation
8
obtained
while
acting
outside
the
scope
of
his
official
by
referring
to
ALL
TERMS
&
CONDITIONS
ON
THE
The
we
that
the
identity
of
the
secondary
the
different
Contract
versions
explicitly
of
L&Ks
referenced.
terms
and
Even
conditions
if
the
could
two
have
created some uncertainty about which set applied, DCS can hardly
claim to have been legitimately confused about the applicability
of the arbitration clause, since both versions contained the
same
arbitration
provision.
Consequently,
the
arbitration
and conditions.
as
here,
an
of
activities
officer
has
substantial
corporation,
his
control
outside
Once
we
impute
Detherages
of
all
knowledge
Id. (emphasis
familiarity
with
L&Ks
Moreover,
Standard
terms
assurances,
DCS
and
conditions
raised
no
to
its
objection
May
to
2010
their
demand
for
applicability
are
satisfied,
correctly
found
the
we
dispute
hold
to
that
be
the
arbitration
arbitrable
and
panel
that
the
that
we
should
nevertheless
vacate
the
arbitration
DCS urges
majority
courts
require
judicial
determination
of
Technicians v. Am. Broad. Co., 140 F.3d 459, 462 (2d Cir. 1998).
Of course, [i]f the party opposing arbitration desires that
11
the
award,
the
party
If arbitrability is rejected
opposing
arbitration
will
have
Id.
arbitration
panel,
resolved
to
challenge
potentially
Now,
determination,
we
having
see
no
affirmed
reason
the
not
panels
to
arbitrability
confirm
its
award.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the
district court and remand with instructions to confirm L&Ks
arbitration award.
REVERSED AND REMANDED
12