Opinion
No. 1000391.
Decided June 1, 2001.
Appeal from Elmore Circuit Court (CV-00-235).
On Application for Rehearing
APPLICATION OVERRULED.
Moore, C.J., and See, Lyons, Brown, Johnstone, Harwood, and Stuart, JJ., concur.
Woodall, J., concurs specially.
I concur to overrule the application for rehearing. I write only to emphasize two points concerning the dissent to this Court's opinion of April 13, 2001.
The dissent states that the Court found no fault with the portion of the arbitration clause that prohibits the arbitrator from awarding punitive damages. That statement is not correct, because this case was remanded "with instructions for the trial court to determine whether the arbitration clause is valid even though it prohibits the arbitrator from awarding punitive damages." ___ So.2d at ___.
The dissent further states that it is based on the belief that the validity of the arbitration agreement should be determined by the trial court, not by the arbitrator. This Court's opinion is premised upon the principle that the validity of the clause at issue should be determined by the trial court and, in fact, that is the basis upon which this case has been remanded with instructions.