CHAPTER 788
ARBITRATION
788.01 Arbitration clauses in contracts enforceable.
788.015 Agreement to arbitrate real estate transaction disputes.
788.02 Stay of action to permit arbitration.
788.03 Court order to arbitrate; procedure.
788.04 Arbitrators, how chosen.
788.06 Hearings before arbitrators; procedure.
788.09 Court confirmation award, time limit.
788.10 Vacation of award, rehearing by arbitrators.
788.11 Modification of award.
788.13 Notice of motion to change award.
788.14 Papers filed with motion regarding award; entry of judgment, effect of judgment.
788.15 Appeal from order or judgment.
788.01
788.01
Arbitration clauses in contracts enforceable. A provision in any written contract to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of the contract, or out of the refusal to perform the whole or any part of the contract, or an agreement in writing between 2 or more persons to submit to arbitration any controversy existing between them at the time of the agreement to submit, shall be valid, irrevocable and enforceable except upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract. This chapter shall not apply to contracts between employers and employees, or between employers and associations of employees, except as provided in s.
111.10, nor to agreements to arbitrate disputes under s.
292.63 (6s) or
230.44 (4) (bm).
788.01 History
History: 1979 c. 32 s.
64; Stats. 1979 s. 788.01;
1993 a. 16;
1997 a. 237,
254;
2001 a. 38;
2013 a. 20.
788.01 Annotation
An insurer's refusal to either pay the plaintiff's claim under the uninsured motorist provision of its automobile policy or to submit to arbitration under an arbitration clause that could be invoked by either party constituted a breach of the contract and a waiver of the insurer's right to later demand arbitration. Collicott v. Economy Fire and Casualty Co.,
68 Wis. 2d 115,
227 N.W.2d 668 (1975).
788.01 Annotation
Failure to comply with provisions of ch. 298 [now this chapter] constitutes waiver of the contractual right to arbitration. State ex rel. Carl v. Charles,
71 Wis. 2d 85,
237 N.W.2d 29 (1976).
788.01 Annotation
If the intent of the parties is not clearly expressed, the court favors construing an arbitration agreement as statutory rather than common law arbitration. Stradinger v. City of Whitewater,
89 Wis. 2d 19,
277 N.W.2d 827 (1979).
788.01 Annotation
Although courts have common law jurisdiction to enforce arbitration awards generally, they cannot enforce an award against the state absent express legislative authorization. State ex rel. Teaching Assistants Associates v. UW-Madison,
96 Wis. 2d 492,
292 N.W.2d 657 (Ct. App. 1980). But see the note to
State v. P.G. Miron Const. Co.
788.01 Annotation
Municipal labor arbitration is within the scope of this chapter. Milwaukee District Council 48 v. Milwaukee Sewerage Commission,
107 Wis. 2d 590,
321 N.W.2d 309 (Ct. App. 1982).
788.01 Annotation
Insurance coverage is a proper matter for arbitration. Maryland Casualty Co. v. Seidenspinner,
181 Wis. 2d 950,
512 N.W.2d 186 (Ct. App. 1994).
788.01 Annotation
Sovereign immunity is not applicable to arbitration and there need not be specific statutory authority for the state to be subject to the arbitration provisions of this chapter. State v. P.G. Miron Construction Co.,
181 Wis. 2d 1045,
512 N.W.2d 499 (1994).
788.01 Annotation
Preclusion doctrines preventing rehearing of identical claims are applicable to a limited extent in arbitration cases. Dane County v. Dane County Union Local 65,
210 Wis. 2d 267,
565 N.W.2d 540 (Ct. App. 1997),
96-0359.
788.01 Annotation
Whether the parties agreed to submit an issue to arbitration is a question of law for the courts to decide. Kimberly Area School District v. Zdanovec,
222 Wis. 2d 27,
586 N.W.2d 41 (Ct. App. 1998),
98-0783.
788.01 Annotation
The trial court erred in ruling that the unavailability of the arbitrator named in an agreement resulted in a dissolution of the agreement's arbitration provision. When the primary purpose of the dispute resolution provision in the agreement is to arbitrate disputes that arise between the parties, the unavailability of the named arbitrator does not nullify an arbitration provision. Madison Teachers, Inc. v. Wisconsin Education Ass'n Council,
2005 WI App 180,
285 Wis. 2d 737,
703 N.W.2d 711,
04-1053.
788.01 Annotation
The designation of a specific arbitration service and the incorporation of its rules governing all aspects of arbitration was integral to the parties' alternate dispute resolution (ADR) agreement to a degree as integral as the agreement to arbitrate itself. In light of a consent judgment effectively barring the arbitration service from arbitration, the ADR agreement failed altogether. Riley v. Extendicare Health Facilities, Inc.,
2013 WI App 9,
345 Wis. 2d 804,
826 N.W.2d 398,
12-0311.
788.01 Annotation
This section provides that a contractual provision to arbitrate is irrevocable “except upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of a contract." No Wisconsin or federal case establishes that, once arbitration is contracted as the forum for dispute resolution, parties can never later contract for an alternative forum for dispute resolution. Fundamental principles of freedom to contract support the proposition that parties can subsequently contract to modify the terms of a previous contract. This chapter does not limit such freedom to contract. Another contract that clearly and expressly supersedes a first contract is grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of a contract. Midwest Neurosciences Associates, LLC v. Great Lakes Neurosurgical Associates, LLC,
2018 WI 112,
384 Wis. 2d 669,
920 N.W.2d 767,
16-0601.
788.01 Annotation
Arbitration is a matter of contract between private parties who enjoy that freedom. A circuit court has no authority to halt a contractually agreed upon arbitration. The circuit court may act only to ensure the parties who contracted for arbitration abide by their contractual agreement. State ex rel. CityDeck Landing LLC v. Circuit Court for Brown County,
2019 WI 15,
385 Wis. 2d 516,
922 N.W.2d 832,
18-0291.
788.01 Annotation
While a court's authority under the Federal Arbitration Act to compel arbitration may be considerable, it isn't unconditional. A court should decide for itself whether 9 USC 1 of the Act's “contracts of employment" exclusion applies before ordering arbitration. After all, to invoke its statutory powers to stay litigation and compel arbitration according to a contract's terms, a court must first know whether the contract itself falls within or beyond the boundaries of the Act. New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, 586 U.S. ___,
139 S. Ct. 532,
202 L. Ed. 2d 536 (2019).
788.01 Annotation
Commercial arbitration agreements: let the signers beware. 61 MLR 466.
788.015
788.015
Agreement to arbitrate real estate transaction disputes. A provision in any written agreement between a purchaser or seller of real estate and a real estate broker, or between a purchaser and seller of real estate, to submit to arbitration any controversy between them arising out of the real estate transaction is valid, irrevocable and enforceable except upon any grounds that exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any agreement. The agreement may limit the types of controversies required to be arbitrated and specify a term during which the parties agree to be bound by the agreement.
788.015 History
History: 1991 a. 163.
788.02
788.02
Stay of action to permit arbitration. If any suit or proceeding be brought upon any issue referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing for such arbitration, the court in which such suit is pending, upon being satisfied that the issue involved in such suit or proceeding is referable to arbitration under such an agreement, shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement, providing the applicant for the stay is not in default in proceeding with such arbitration.
788.02 History
History: 1979 c. 32 s.
64; Stats. 1979 s. 788.02.
788.02 Annotation
Commencing litigation did not waive a contractual right to arbitration. J.J. Andrews, Inc. v. Midland,
164 Wis. 2d 215,
474 N.W.2d 756 (Ct. App. 1991).
788.02 Annotation
The right to arbitrate may be waived. Conduct that allows an action to proceed to a point where the purpose of arbitration is frustrated estops a party from claiming a right to arbitration. Meyer v. Classified Ins. Corp.,
179 Wis. 2d 386,
507 N.W.2d 149 (Ct. App. 1993).
788.02 Annotation
In determining whether a dispute is arbitrable, a court's function is limited to a determination of whether: 1) there is a construction of the arbitration clause that would cover the grievance on its face; and 2) whether any other provision of the contract specifically excludes it. Mortimore v. Merge Technologies Inc.,
2012 WI App 109,
344 Wis.2d 459,
824 N.W.2d 155,
11-1039.
788.02 Annotation
In determining a court's function in arbitration disputes, Wisconsin has adopted the following general teachings: 1) arbitration is a matter of contract, and, as such, no party can be compelled to arbitrate a matter that the party has not agreed to submit to arbitration; 2) the question of arbitrability is one for judicial determination unless the parties expressly agree otherwise; 3) in determining whether the parties have agreed to submit a matter for arbitration, the court does not consider the merits of the underlying claim; 4) contracts that contain arbitration clauses carry a strong presumption of arbitration; therefore, doubts are resolved in favor of arbitration coverage. Mortimore v. Merge Technologies Inc.,
2012 WI App 109,
344 Wis.2d 459,
824 N.W.2d 155,
11-1039.
788.02 Annotation
Parties may contract broadly and agree to arbitrate even the issue of arbitrability. However, arbitrators cannot determine whether they have the authority to decide arbitrability unless the parties give arbitrators such authority. The evidence of this grant of authority must be clear and unmistakable; otherwise, the question of whether the parties agreed to arbitrate is to be decided by the court, not the arbitrator. Midwest Neurosciences Associates, LLC v. Great Lakes Neurosurgical Associates, LLC,
2018 WI 112,
384 Wis. 2d 669,
920 N.W.2d 767,
16-0601.
788.02 Annotation
A court should order arbitration only if the court is satisfied that neither the formation of the parties' arbitration agreement nor (absent a valid provision specifically committing such disputes to an arbitrator) its enforceability or applicability to the dispute is in issue. In answering both who determines arbitrability and what is subject to arbitration, a court applies state-law contract principles and this chapter. Accordingly, a court may invalidate an arbitration agreement based on generally applicable contract defenses like fraud or unconscionability, but not on legal rules that apply only to arbitration or that derive their meaning from the fact that an agreement to arbitrate is at issue. Midwest Neurosciences Associates, LLC v. Great Lakes Neurosurgical Associates, LLC,
2018 WI 112,
384 Wis. 2d 669,
920 N.W.2d 767,
16-0601.
788.02 Annotation
The procedure under this section is somewhat truncated in comparison to s. 788.03, but the circuit court's responsibility is essentially the same. Both this section and s. 788.03 require the circuit court to do nothing more than determine whether the parties must arbitrate their dispute and then ensure that they do. L.G. v. Aurora Residential Alternatives, Inc.,
2019 WI 79,
387 Wis. 2d 724,
929 N.W.2d 590,
18-0656.
788.02 Annotation
An application to stay pursuant to this section is a special proceeding within the meaning of s. 808.03 (1), and a circuit court order denying a request to compel arbitration and stay a pending lawsuit is final for the purposes of appeal. L.G. v. Aurora Residential Alternatives, Inc.,
2019 WI 79,
387 Wis. 2d 724,
929 N.W.2d 590,
18-0656.
788.03
788.03
Court order to arbitrate; procedure. The party aggrieved by the alleged failure, neglect or refusal of another to perform under a written agreement for arbitration may petition any court of record having jurisdiction of the parties or of the property for an order directing that such arbitration proceed as provided for in such agreement. Five days' notice in writing of such application shall be served upon the party in default. Service thereof shall be made as provided by law for the service of a summons. The court shall hear the parties, and upon being satisfied that the making of the agreement for arbitration or the failure to comply therewith is not in issue, the court shall make an order directing the parties to proceed to arbitration in accordance with the terms of the agreement. If the making of the arbitration agreement or the failure, neglect or refusal to perform the same is in issue, the court shall proceed summarily to the trial thereof. If no jury trial is demanded, the court shall hear and determine such issue. Where such an issue is raised, either party may, on or before the return day of the notice of application, demand a jury trial of such issue, and upon such demand the court shall make an order referring the issue to a jury summoned and selected under s.
756.06. If the jury finds that no agreement in writing for arbitration was made or that there is no default in proceeding thereunder, the proceeding shall be dismissed. If the jury finds that an agreement for arbitration was made in writing and that there is a default in proceeding thereunder, the court shall make an order summarily directing the parties to proceed with the arbitration in accordance with the terms thereof.
788.03 History
History: Sup. Ct. Order, 67 Wis. 2d 585, 775 (1975);
1977 c. 187 s.
135;
1979 c. 32 s.
64; Stats. 1979 s. 788.03; Sup. Ct. Order No.
96-08, 207 Wis. 2d xv (1997).
788.03 Annotation
An insured who acceded to the insurer's refusal to arbitrate the insured's uninsured motorist claim until after the insured's passengers' claims were litigated was not an “aggrieved party" within the meaning of this section. Worthington v. Farmers Insurance Exchange,
77 Wis. 2d 508,
253 N.W.2d 76 (1977).
788.03 Annotation
In the absence of a reservation of rights, “partial participation" in the arbitration process may estop a party from challenging an arbitration agreement. Pilgrim Investment Corp. v. Reed,
156 Wis. 2d 677,
457 N.W.2d 544 (Ct. App. 1990).
788.03 Annotation
This section is only available when an underlying lawsuit has not yet been filed. When a lawsuit has been commenced, a party may not use the special procedure outlined in this section to compel arbitration. The party may still seek an order to arbitrate, but it must do so in the court where the underlying lawsuit is pending, not by initiating a separate action. The Payday Loan Store of Wisconsin Inc. v. Krueger,
2013 WI App 25,
346 Wis. 2d 237,
828 N.W.2d 587,
12-0751.
788.03 Annotation
Timeliness and estoppel defenses against arbitration are to be determined in the arbitration proceedings, not by a court in a proceeding under this section to compel arbitration. This conclusion in this case was based on Wisconsin's public policy favoring arbitration, the arbitration agreement in this case, the Realtors Association's arbitration procedures, the limited role of courts in actions to compel arbitration under this section, and relevant case law. First Weber Group, Inc. v. Synergy Real Estate Group, LLC,
2015 WI 34,
361 Wis. 2d 496,
860 N.W.2d 498,
13-1205.
788.03 Annotation
The legislature has determined that the courts have a limited role in the context of arbitration. In an action to compel arbitration under this section, the issues are limited to the making of the arbitration agreement or the failure, neglect, or refusal to perform under the agreement. When determining whether a dispute is arbitrable, a court's function is limited to a determination of whether there is a construction of the arbitration clause that would cover the grievance on its face and whether any other provision of the contract specifically excludes it. First Weber Group, Inc. v. Synergy Real Estate Group, LLC,
2015 WI 34,
361 Wis. 2d 496,
860 N.W.2d 498,
13-1205.
788.03 Annotation
The procedure under s. 788.02 is somewhat truncated in comparison to this section, but the circuit court's responsibility is essentially the same. Both this section and s. 788.02 require the circuit court to do nothing more than determine whether the parties must arbitrate their dispute and then ensure that they do. L.G. v. Aurora Residential Alternatives, Inc.,
2019 WI 79,
387 Wis. 2d 724,
929 N.W.2d 590,
18-0656.
788.04
788.04
Arbitrators, how chosen.
