language of the arbitration clause in Alabama

1999See Coastal Ford, Inc. v. Kidder , 694 So.2d 1285 , 1286 (Ala. 1997) (the language of an arbitration clause applying to "all claims, demands, disputes, or controversies of every kind or nature that may arise . . . concerning the vehicle" was not ambiguous and was broad enough to encompass the claims at issue); Ex parte Lorance , 669 So.2d 890 , 892-93 (Ala. 1995) (the language of the arbitration clause subjecting to arbitration "`any controversy or claim arising out of . . . this contract'" was broad enough to encompass the plaintiff's claim alleging fraud in the inducement of the contract).

1998See, Allied-Bruce Terminix Companies, Inc. v. Dobson, 684 So.2d 102, 103 (Ala.1995) (discussing the rule that general principles of contract law apply to the interpretation of an arbitration provision); Coastal Ford, Inc. v. Kidder, 694 So.2d 1285, 1286 (Ala.1997) (holding that the language of an arbitration clause applying to "all claims, demands, disputes, or controversies of every kind or nature that may arise ... concerning the vehicle" was not ambiguous and was broad enough to encompass the claims at issue); Ex parte Lorance, 669 So.2d 890, 892-93 (Ala.1995) (holding that the language of

1999See Coastal Ford, Inc. v. Kidder , 694 So.2d 1285 , 1286 (Ala. 1997) (the language of an arbitration clause applying to "all claims, demands, disputes, or controversies of every kind or nature that may arise . . . concerning the vehicle" was not ambiguous and was broad enough to encompass the claims at issue); Ex parte Lorance , 669 So.2d 890 , 892-93 (Ala. 1995) (the language of the arbitration clause subjecting to arbitration "`any controversy or claim arising out of . . . this contract'" was broad enough to encompass the plaintiff's claim alleging fraud in the inducement of the contract).

1998See, Allied-Bruce Terminix Companies, Inc. v. Dobson, 684 So.2d 102, 103 (Ala.1995) (discussing the rule that general principles of contract law apply to the interpretation of an arbitration provision); Coastal Ford, Inc. v. Kidder, 694 So.2d 1285, 1286 (Ala.1997) (holding that the language of an arbitration clause applying to "all claims, demands, disputes, or controversies of every kind or nature that may arise ... concerning the vehicle" was not ambiguous and was broad enough to encompass the claims at issue); Ex parte Lorance, 669 So.2d 890, 892-93 (Ala.1995) (holding that the language of

1998See, also the following cases, from other jurisdictions, addressing the effect of broadly worded arbitration provisions on the scope of arbitration: Levine v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 1986 WL 8317 (No. 85 Civ. 8354, S.D.N.Y., July 22, 1986) (not reported in F.Supp.) (in which the district court enforced a similar agreement, stating that "[i]t is difficult to imagine language broader" than the phrase "any controversy"); Pritzker v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 7 F.3d 1110, 1114 (3d Cir.1993) (in which the Court of Appeals considered arbitration language virtu

1998See, also the following cases, from other jurisdictions, addressing the effect of broadly worded arbitration provisions on the scope of arbitration: Levine v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 1986 WL 8317 (No. 85 Civ. 8354, S.D.N.Y., July 22, 1986) (not reported in F.Supp.) (in which the district court enforced a similar agreement, stating that "[i]t is difficult to imagine language broader" than the phrase "any controversy"); Pritzker v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 7 F.3d 1110, 1114 (3d Cir.1993) (in which the Court of Appeals considered arbitration language virtu

1998See, Allied-Bruce Terminix Companies, Inc. v. Dobson, 684 So.2d 102, 103 (Ala.1995) (discussing the rule that general principles of contract law apply to the interpretation of an arbitration provision); Coastal Ford, Inc. v. Kidder, 694 So.2d 1285, 1286 (Ala.1997) (holding that the language of an arbitration clause applying to "all claims, demands, disputes, or controversies of every kind or nature that may arise ... concerning the vehicle" was not ambiguous and was broad enough to encompass the claims at issue); Ex parte Lorance, 669 So.2d 890, 892-93 (Ala.1995) (holding that the language of

1998I conclude that, in the language of the arbitration clause in the policy issued to the Montalvos by Stewart Title Guaranty, these claims "[arise] out of or [relate] to [the] policy, [some] service of the Company in connection with its issuance or the breach of a policy provision or other obligation." [2] Ex parte McKinney, 515 So.2d 693, 699 (Ala. 1987) [3] The action was initially brought against only Stewart Title of Mobile and Cooper and Company.

1994The arbitration provision interpreted in Mediterranean stated: "Any disputes arising hereunder or following the formation of joint venture shall be settled through binding arbitration. . . ." 708 F.2d at 1461.

1994The arbitration provision interpreted in Mediterranean stated: "Any disputes arising hereunder or following the formation of joint venture shall be settled through binding arbitration...." 708 F.2d at 1461.