Justia Hawaii Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A group of plaintiffs, including a medical practice, individual physicians, a medical society, and two patients, brought various claims against a health insurer, alleging that the insurer interfered with doctor-patient relationships, denied or delayed coverage for medical services, and caused significant harm to patients. The claims included tortious interference with contractual rights, unfair competition, RICO violations, and emotional distress, with specific factual allegations that the insurer’s actions led to worsened medical outcomes for the patients involved.The Circuit Court of the Third Circuit reviewed the insurer’s motion to compel arbitration based on arbitration clauses in provider agreements and member handbooks. Instead of determining whether the claims were subject to arbitration, the circuit court focused on the alleged unconscionability of the contracts as a whole, finding them to be contracts of adhesion and unconscionable, and denied the motion to compel arbitration. The court also denied summary judgment as to one patient’s claims and did not stay the medical society’s claims pending arbitration.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawaiʻi reviewed the case and held that the circuit court erred by not following the required analytical framework for arbitrability. The Supreme Court vacated the lower court’s order in part, holding that claims arising under the Participating Physician Agreement must be referred to arbitration because the agreement delegated the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator. Claims under the Medicare and QUEST Agreements were also subject to arbitration, as the arbitration clauses were not shown to be substantively unconscionable. However, the Court held that the claims of one patient and the physician as a patient were not subject to mandatory arbitration, and another patient’s claims were not subject to a grievance and appeals clause. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings. View "Frederick A. Nitta, M.D., Inc. v. Hawaii Medical Service Association." on Justia Law

A dispute arose between two companies, one a contractor and the other a developer, over a construction project in Maui. The disagreement was submitted to binding arbitration, resulting in an award in favor of the developer. The developer sought to confirm the award in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, but the contractor challenged the award, alleging the arbitrator was evidently partial due to undisclosed relationships. The circuit court initially confirmed the award, but on appeal, the Supreme Court of Hawai‘i remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing on the partiality claim. After the hearing, the circuit court found evident partiality, denied confirmation, vacated the award, and ordered a rehearing before a new arbitrator.Following this, the contractor moved for taxation of costs incurred on appeal, which the circuit court granted. The developer sought to appeal the costs order, but the circuit court denied an interlocutory appeal. A new arbitration was held, again resulting in an award for the developer, which was confirmed in a new special proceeding with a final judgment entered. The developer then appealed the earlier costs order from the first special proceeding.The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) dismissed the appeal as untimely, reasoning that the circuit court’s order vacating the first arbitration award and ordering a rehearing was an appealable final order under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 658A-28(a)(3), making the subsequent costs order also immediately appealable.The Supreme Court of Hawai‘i reviewed the case and held that an order vacating an arbitration award and directing a rehearing is not an appealable order under HRS § 658A-28(a). The court clarified that such orders lack finality, regardless of whether the rehearing is full or partial, and reaffirmed the majority rule previously adopted in State of Hawaii Organization of Police Officers (SHOPO) v. County of Kauai. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA’s dismissal and remanded the case for entry of a final judgment, so the merits of the appeal could be addressed. View "Nordic PCL Construction, Inc. v. LPIHGC, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted the State's request for attorney's fees in this appeal arising from a grievance arbitration, holding that the State "incurred" attorney's fees for the purposes of Haw. Rev. Stat. 658A-25.In the arbitration, the State was represented by an attorney employed by the State's Department of Attorney General. The union requested attorney's fees and costs, which the circuit court denied. The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirmed. Thereafter, the State filed a request for appellate attorney's fees and costs, citing section 658A-25 and Haw. R. App. P. 39(a). The ICA granted the State's request for costs but denied its request for attorney's fees on the grounds that the State "failed to demonstrate that it incurred, as an expense, liability, or legal obligation to pay, appellate attorney's fees[.]" The Supreme Court reversed and granted the State's request for attorney's fees, holding that the fees were erroneously denied on the grounds that they were not "incurred." View "In re Arbitration between United Public Workers and State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirming the judgment of the circuit court granting Defendants' motion to compel arbitration of Plaintiff's complaint against a partnership and a partner after concluding that Plaintiff's claims arose out of the agreement founding the partnership, signed by Plaintiff, that contained an arbitration clause, holding that the claims in Plaintiff's complaint were not subject to the arbitration clause in the partnership agreement.Plaintiff, a founding partner of the partnership, brought claims alleging conversion, fraudulent conversion, and punitive damages. The lower courts concluded that Plaintiff's claims arose out of the partnership agreement, and therefore the arbitration clause applied. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because Defendants failed to initiate arbitration pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. 658A-9 before filing a motion to compel arbitration and because the arbitration clause did not encompass Plaintiff's claims for conversion, the ICA erred in affirming the circuit court's order granting Defendants' motion to compel arbitration. View "Yamamoto v. Chee" on Justia Law

At issue was whether the time to file a motion to vacate an arbitration award is limited by the opposing party’s filing of a motion to confirm and how an order denying a motion to vacate an arbitration award can properly be appealed.After receiving notice of an arbitrator’s award in their favor, Plaintiffs filed a motion to confirm the award. Before the ninety-day period in which Defendants could file a motion to vacate the award had expired, the circuit court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to confirm. Defendants, then moved to vacate the award within the ninety-day period. The circuit court denied the motion to vacate. Defendants appealed the judgment of confirmation and the order denying the motion to vacate. The ICA dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the circuit court amended its order to “again confirm” the award to allow Defendants to appeal. The ICA dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that because Defendants timely appealed an order that amended the circuit court’s prior order denying their motion to vacate in a “material and substantial respect” and because Defendants filed their motion to vacate within the statutory period, the ICA erred in dismissing the appeal. View "Bennett v. Chung" on Justia Law

In this arbitrability dispute, the Supreme Court reversed the portion of the intermediate court of appeals’ (ICA) order denying Petitioners’ request for appellate attorneys’ fees and affirmed the portions of the ICA’s order granting Petitioners’ request for appellate costs and denying Petitioners’ request for fees and costs incurred in the circuit court without prejudice. The court held (1) for purposes of Haw. Rev. Stat. 607-14, the appeal of the arbitrability issue is a separate action from the underlying dispute on the merits; (2) Petitioners prevailed in the arbitrability action and were therefore entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees under section 607-14 and a fee-shifting provision in a purchase agreement; and (3) as to Petitioners’ request for an order stating that they were entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in proceedings before the circuit court and in arbitration, the circuit court properly denied without prejudice to Petitioners’ right to request fees and costs from the circuit court. View "Charles v. Kapalua Bay, LLC " on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed its decision in Narayan I, in which the court held that Plaintiffs, a group of individual condominium owners, could not be compelled to arbitrate claims arising from the financial breakdown of a condominium project. Specifically, the court held in Narayan I that the arbitration clause was unenforceable because the terms of the documents at issue were ambiguous with respect to Plaintiffs’ intent to arbitrate and that portions of the arbitration clause were unconscionable. The United States Supreme Court vacated and remanded Narayan I for further consideration in light of its recent decision in DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia, 577 U.S. __ (2015), which held that state law must place arbitration agreements on equal footing with all other contracts. After recognizing this principle, the Hawaii Supreme Court held that that the arbitration clause at issue in the present case was unconscionable under common law contract principles. View "Narayan v. Ritz-Carlton Development Co." on Justia Law

Appellants, a group of individual condominium owners in the Kapulua Bay condominium, challenged the vote of the Association of Apartment Owners of Kapulua Bay Condominium to convert the residential community into a hotel. The dispute was submitted to arbitration. On appeal, Appellants challenged the adequacy of the neutral arbitrator’s disclosures in the arbitration. The circuit court concluded that vacatur was not required because the undisclosed relationships did not constitute “evident partiality.” The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not clearly err in concluding that the arbitrator’s undisclosed connections with certain parties did not constitute evident partiality. View "Narayan v. Ass'n of Apartment Owners of Kapalua Bay Condominium" on Justia Law

Under the circumstances of this case, it was unconscionable to require an employee to pay half the estimated arbitration costs up front in order to access the arbitral forum, and therefore, the requirement was unenforceable.Plaintiff signed and submitted an employment contract that contained an arbitration provision. Plaintiff, however, never did work for Defendant. Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that Defendant refused to hire her in retaliation for her filing a sexual harassment complaint. Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiff opposed the motion to compel, arguing, inter alia, that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable because it required her to pay for the arbitration costs in a civil rights matter. The circuit court ultimately granted Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. The court found it would be unconscionable for Plaintiff to pay half the arbitration estimate to access the arbitral forum but nonetheless concluded that the arbitration clause could be enforced by requiring Defendant to pay for all arbitration fees and costs. The Supreme Court vacated the circuit court’s order, holding that the circuit court (1) correctly concluded that the parties entered into a valid arbitration agreement; but (2) improperly reformed the arbitration agreement instead of invalidating the entire agreement. View "Gabriel v. Island Pacific Academy, Inc." on Justia Law

RT Import Inc. filed a complaint against Jesus and Mila Torres seeking damages for merchandise allegedly misdelivered by WFS to the Torreses, which was then converted by the Torreses. RT Import and the Torreses agreed to resolve their dispute through binding arbitration. The arbitrator found that the Torreses committed the intentional tort of conversion and awarded RT Import damages. The arbitrator also found that the Torreses were responsible for arbitration fees and costs. The circuit court granted RT Import’s motion to confirm the final award and awarded RT Import $106,711.62 in damages and $8,355.49 for arbitration attorney’s fees and costs. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed the circuit court’s confirmation of the final arbitration award and judgment. The Supreme Court vacated the circuit court’s judgment as to $4,738.74 of the $8,355.49 for RT’s arbitration attorney’s fees and costs and otherwise affirmed, holding that the circuit court erred by including in the judgment confirming the arbitration award $4,738.74 directly billed by RT Import to the Torreses, which was not a part of the final award. Remanded. View "RT Import, Inc. v. Torres" on Justia Law