Allied-bruce Terminix Companies, Inc., and Terminix International Company v. G. Michael Dobson et al. (513 U.S. 265)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided January 18, 1995 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 513 U.S. 265 · 115 S. Ct. 834
- Decided
- January 18, 1995
- Term
- October Term 1994
- Vote
- 7–2
- Majority author
- Justice Breyer
- Issue area
- Federalism
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court. This case concerns the reach of § 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act. That section makes enforceable a written arbitration provision in “a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce.” 9 U. S. C. § 2 (emphasis added). Should we read this phrase broadly, extending the Act’s reach to the limits of Congress’ Commerce Clause power? Or, do the two italicized words — “involving” and “evidencing” — significantly restrict the Act’s application? We conclude that the broader reading of the Act is the correct one, and we reverse a State Supreme Court judgment to the contrary. I In August 1987, Steven Gwin, a respondent who owned a house in Birmingham, Alabama, bought a lifetime “Termite Protection Plan” (Plan) from the local office of Allied-Bruce Terminix Companies, a franchise of Terminix International Company. In the Plan, Allied-Bruce promised “to protect” Gwin’s house “against the attack of subterranean termites,” to reinspect periodically, to provide any “further treatment found necessary,” and to repair, up to $100,000, damage caused by new termite infestations. App. 69. Terminix International “guarantee^] the fulfillment of the terms” of the Plan. Ibid. The Plan’s contract document provided in writing that “any controversy or claim .. . arising out of or relating to the interpretation, performance or breach of any…
Excerpt of a 28,381-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.