delegation clause in Illinois

2025Unconscionability ¶ 18 Sheridan contends that her arbitration agreement with Uber, including the delegation clause, is unconscionable. ¶ 19 A delegation clause requires the arbitrator to decide certain threshold issues “such as whether [an arbitration] agreement covers a particular controversy.” Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63, 68-70 (2010). ¶ 20 In this case, the delegation clause delegates the issue of unconscionability to the arbitrator.

2024This is especially challenging when the arbitration clause contains a delegation clause, which is “an agreement to arbitrate threshold issues concerning the arbitration agreement.” Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63, 68 (2010).

2025In Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 445-49 (2006), the Court determined that, “Regardless of whether the challenge is brought in federal or state court, a challenge to the validity of the contract as a whole, and not [a challenge] specifically to the arbitration clause, must go to the arbitrator.” As in Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc., Brown’s proposed amendments attack the agreement, but not the delegation clause.

2025In Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 445-49 (2006), the Court determined that, “Regardless of whether the challenge is brought in federal or state court, a challenge to the validity of the contract as a whole, and not [a challenge] specifically to the arbitration clause, must go to the arbitrator.” As in Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc., Brown’s proposed amendments attack the agreement, but not the delegation clause.

2025Uber maintains that the delegation clause requires the arbitrator to decide that issue. ¶ 35 Sheridan’s arbitration agreement provides that “the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. (‘FAA’), will govern its interpretation.” Under the FAA, “parties can agree to arbitrate gateway questions of arbitrability, such as whether *** whether their agreement covers a particular controversy.” (Internal quotations omitted.) Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 586 U.S. 63, 67-68 (2019).

2025Id. ¶ 36 In this case, the delegation clause provides that “[t]he Arbitrator shall also be responsible for determining all threshold arbitrability issues, including issues relating to whether the Terms are applicable ***.

2024The question of whether the - 19 - decedent’s death constitutes a “discharge” that terminates the contract is one squarely within the delegation clause, so it must be answered by the arbitrator. ¶ 58 Plaintiff argues that the FAA does not preempt state law contract defenses, citing Carter II, 2012 IL 113204 , and Calusinski v. Alden-Poplar Creek Rehabilitation & Health Care Center, Inc., 2022 IL App (1st) 220508 .

2023The court found plaintiff failed to demonstrate her mental incapacity, compliance with the federal regulations did not determine whether the Arbitration Rider was enforceable or not, and the unconscionability claims should be determined by the arbitrator pursuant to the Arbitration Rider’s delegation clause. ¶ 12 On October 3, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider, citing Calusinski v. Alden-Poplar Creek Rehabilitation & Health Care Center, Inc., 2022 IL App (1st) 220508, ¶¶ 10, 16 , in which the reviewing court found the arbitration agreement was substantively unconscionable and thus u

2025Sabo, 408 Ill.

2024Razor v. Hyundai Motor America, 222 Ill. 2d 75, 100 (2006); Bain, 2022 IL App (1st) 211001, ¶ 28 . ¶ 17 As a threshold matter, although Aspired argued before the circuit court that any claims of unconscionability must be decided by an arbitrator based on the arbitration agreement’s delegation clause, it does not raise this issue on appeal.

2024Savers Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburg, PA, 748 F.3d 708, 722 (6th Cir. 2014).

2023“The question whether the parties have submitted a particular dispute to arbitration, i.e., the question of arbitrability, is an issue for judicial determination [u]nless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise.” (Emphasis and internal quotation marks omitted.) Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79, 83 (2002).

2023Kinkel v. Cingular Wireless, LLC, 223 Ill. 2d 1, 22 , 857 N.E.2d 250, 264 (2006). ¶ 18 In its appellant brief, the Loft asserts the circuit court erred by denying its motion to compel arbitration because the Arbitration Rider has a delegation clause or, alternatively, the Arbitration Rider was not substantively unconscionable.

2023Kinkel v. Cingular Wireless, LLC, 223 Ill. 2d 1, 22 , 857 N.E.2d 250, 264 (2006). ¶ 18 In its appellant brief, the Loft asserts the circuit court erred by denying its motion to compel arbitration because the Arbitration Rider has a delegation clause or, alternatively, the Arbitration Rider was not substantively unconscionable.

2023In the other case, the delegation clause stated the following: “ ‘The arbitrator shall have the sole authority to rule on his/her own jurisdiction, including any challenges or objections with respect to the existence, applicability, scope, enforceability, construction, validity and interpretation of this Policy and any agreement to arbitrate a Covered Dispute.’ ” Kubala v. Supreme Production - 10 - Services, Inc., 830 F.3d 199, 204 (5th Cir. 2016).

1974Rosenhein v. Frear, 138 Wis. 175 at 176 to 177, 119 N.W. 894 at 895 (1909).) (Emphasis added.) The delegation requirement was eloquently set forth in Asp, Inc. v. Capital Bank and Trust Co., supra, at 813: “It is universally recognized that with the power to legislate there is inherent in the Legislature the power to conduct investigations, and that these investigations should be conducted solely as an aid to its consideration and determination of prospective legislation.