separability doctrine in Arizona

2025Id. ¶8 To that end, federal and Arizona law applies the separability doctrine to agreements to arbitrate.

2025See Rent-A- Center, 561 U.S. at 70 (“[A] party’s challenge to another provision of the contract, or to the contract as a whole, does not prevent a court from enforcing a specific agreement to arbitrate.”); see also Hamblen v. Hatch, 242 Ariz. 483 , 487 ¶¶ 15–16 (2017) (recognizing Arizona’s adoption of the separability doctrine).

2025See Rent-A- Center, 561 U.S. at 70 (“[A] party’s challenge to another provision of the contract, or to the contract as a whole, does not prevent a court from enforcing a specific agreement to arbitrate.”); see also Hamblen v. Hatch, 242 Ariz. 483 , 487 ¶¶ 15–16 (2017) (recognizing Arizona’s adoption of the separability doctrine).

2022See Rent-A-Center, 561 U.S. at 70 (“a party’s challenge to another provision of the contract, or to the contract as a whole, does not prevent a court from enforcing a specific agreement to arbitrate”). ¶30 “Substantive unconscionability concerns the actual terms of the contract,” and because separability governs arbitration, the terms of the arbitration clause—standing alone—govern its substantive unconscionability.

2022Co. v. El Destino, LP, 227 Ariz. 302, 306, ¶ 10 (App. 2011); see also Hamblen v. Hatch, 242 Ariz. 483 , 487–88, ¶¶ 16–17 (2017); 9 U.S.C. § 2 ; A.R.S. § 12-3006. 4 DUNCAN, et al v. PUBLIC STORAGE Opinion of the Court ¶13 Under the separability doctrine, an “arbitration clause is considered to be an agreement independent and separate from the principal contract.” U.S. Insulation, Inc. v. Hilro Constr.

2022Nevertheless, “the same grounds may be used to challenge both an arbitration agreement and the underlying contract so long as an arbitration agreement itself is separately and distinctly challenged on those grounds.” Id. at 307, ¶ 13 . ¶14 In their responses to Public Storage’s motions to compel arbitration, the renters did not raise a defense consistent with the separability doctrine.

2022Co., 146 Ariz. 250, 253 (App. 1985). “[C]ourts must place arbitration agreements on equal footing with other contracts . . . and enforce them according to their terms.” AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 , 339 (2011) (internal citation omitted).

2017Id. (quoting Prima Paint, 388 U.S. at 402 , 87 S.Ct. 1801 ) (second emphasis added in U.S. Insulation); see also WB, The Building Co., LLC v. El Destino, LP (“WB”), 227 Ariz. 302 , 306-07 ¶ 11, 257 P.3d 1182 (App. 2011) (noting as “well-established that arbitration agreements are severable from the rest of the contract, and therefore, a court may only stay arbitration if there is a challenge to the arbitration clause itself’); Stevens/Leinweber/Sullens, Inc. v. Holm Dev. & Mgmt., Inc. (“SLS”), 165 Ariz. 25, 29 , 795 P.2d 1308 (App. 1990) (concluding that “the doctrine of separability is inhere

2017Id. (quoting Prima Paint, 388 U.S. at 402 , 87 S.Ct. 1801 ) (second emphasis added in U.S. Insulation); see also WB, The Building Co., LLC v. El Destino, LP (“WB”), 227 Ariz. 302 , 306-07 ¶ 11, 257 P.3d 1182 (App. 2011) (noting as “well-established that arbitration agreements are severable from the rest of the contract, and therefore, a court may only stay arbitration if there is a challenge to the arbitration clause itself’); Stevens/Leinweber/Sullens, Inc. v. Holm Dev. & Mgmt., Inc. (“SLS”), 165 Ariz. 25, 29 , 795 P.2d 1308 (App. 1990) (concluding that “the doctrine of separability is inhere

2017Id. (quoting Prima Paint, 388 U.S. at 402 , 87 S.Ct. 1801 ) (second emphasis added in U.S. Insulation); see also WB, The Building Co., LLC v. El Destino, LP (“WB”), 227 Ariz. 302 , 306-07 ¶ 11, 257 P.3d 1182 (App. 2011) (noting as “well-established that arbitration agreements are severable from the rest of the contract, and therefore, a court may only stay arbitration if there is a challenge to the arbitration clause itself’); Stevens/Leinweber/Sullens, Inc. v. Holm Dev. & Mgmt., Inc. (“SLS”), 165 Ariz. 25, 29 , 795 P.2d 1308 (App. 1990) (concluding that “the doctrine of separability is inhere

2025Shattuck, 115 Ariz. at 589 (explaining that agreeing “to do something” while reserving “the right to cancel . . . is no agreement at all”). ¶13 Rainguard references the doctrine of separability, asserting that the arbitration provision must be considered as a separate contract.

2022See State v. Aleman, 210 Ariz. 232 , 240, ¶ 24 (App. 2005) (waiver is a procedural concept this court does not “rigidly employ in mechanical fashion”). 5 DUNCAN, et al v. PUBLIC STORAGE Opinion of the Court II.

2017Cf. Buckeye Check Cashing, 546 U.S. at 445-46 , 126 S.Ct. 1204 (stating that “unless the challenge is to the arbitration clause itself, the issue of the contract’s validity is considered by the arbitrator in the first instance’’); Saint Agnes Medical Center v. PacifiCare of California, 31 Cal.4th 1187 , 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 617 , 82 P.3d 727, 735 (2003) (“[T]he central rationale of Prima Paint was that an arbitration clause is separable from other portions of a contract, such that fraud in the inducement relating to other contractual terms does not render an arbitration clause unenforceable, even whe

2017Cf. Buckeye Check Cashing, 546 U.S. at 445-46 , 126 S.Ct. 1204 (stating that “unless the challenge is to the arbitration clause itself, the issue of the contract’s validity is considered by the arbitrator in the first instance’’); Saint Agnes Medical Center v. PacifiCare of California, 31 Cal.4th 1187 , 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 617 , 82 P.3d 727, 735 (2003) (“[T]he central rationale of Prima Paint was that an arbitration clause is separable from other portions of a contract, such that fraud in the inducement relating to other contractual terms does not render an arbitration clause unenforceable, even whe

2017Id. (quoting Prima Paint, 388 U.S. at 402 , 87 S.Ct. 1801 ) (second emphasis added in U.S. Insulation); see also WB, The Building Co., LLC v. El Destino, LP (“WB”), 227 Ariz. 302 , 306-07 ¶ 11, 257 P.3d 1182 (App. 2011) (noting as “well-established that arbitration agreements are severable from the rest of the contract, and therefore, a court may only stay arbitration if there is a challenge to the arbitration clause itself’); Stevens/Leinweber/Sullens, Inc. v. Holm Dev. & Mgmt., Inc. (“SLS”), 165 Ariz. 25, 29 , 795 P.2d 1308 (App. 1990) (concluding that “the doctrine of separability is inhere

2017Id. (quoting Prima Paint, 388 U.S. at 402 , 87 S.Ct. 1801 ) (second emphasis added in U.S. Insulation); see also WB, The Building Co., LLC v. El Destino, LP (“WB”), 227 Ariz. 302 , 306-07 ¶ 11, 257 P.3d 1182 (App. 2011) (noting as “well-established that arbitration agreements are severable from the rest of the contract, and therefore, a court may only stay arbitration if there is a challenge to the arbitration clause itself’); Stevens/Leinweber/Sullens, Inc. v. Holm Dev. & Mgmt., Inc. (“SLS”), 165 Ariz. 25, 29 , 795 P.2d 1308 (App. 1990) (concluding that “the doctrine of separability is inhere