HVAC Leak, Arbitration Clause, and a Liability Cap
Summit Field Services contracted with Granite Retail to maintain 18 rooftop HVAC units for $6,000 per month. The signed agreement includes an arbitration clause in paragraph 27, a class-action waiver, a $10,000 limitation of liability, a 30-day written notice requirement, and a forum selection clause naming Summit's home county. A refrigerant leak ruined $250,000 of Granite's inventory and injured an employee. Granite wants to sue in its own state and include other customers who suffered similar leaks. Summit has $2 million in general liability insurance and demands arbitration. Granite argues the clause is unconscionable because it is buried and no one explained it. The employee's workers' compensation claim is separate. Assume the Federal Arbitration Act applies and the contract involves interstate commerce. Granite is a sophisticated retailer with 40 stores and in-house counsel.
1. Is the arbitration clause, including the class-action waiver, enforceable against Granite?
Read the worked answer
The FAA applies because the maintenance contract involves interstate commerce. Section 2 makes arbitration agreements valid and enforceable except on grounds that would invalidate any contract, such as fraud or unconscionability. A clause buried in paragraph 27 is not automatically unenforceable; courts generally enforce commercial arbitration clauses even if not explained. Granite's unconscionability argument is weak if it had bargaining power, could review the contract, and the clause is legible. The class-action waiver is likely enforceable under Concepcion if the clause is mutual and covers the dispute. But the court, not the arbitrator, decides arbitrability unless the clause clearly delegates that issue. If the clause is silent, Granite may litigate the threshold issue. The employee's personal injury claim may not be covered if the clause is limited to contract disputes. Summit should move to compel and stay the court case.
2. Can Summit rely on the $10,000 limitation of liability and the 30-day notice clause to defeat Granite's $250,000 inventory claim?
Read the worked answer
A limitation of liability is generally enforceable between commercial parties if it is clear and not unconscionable. But it may not cap tort claims, gross negligence, or personal injury, and some states restrict caps for negligence causing property damage. If the leak resulted from negligent maintenance, Granite will argue the cap does not apply to tort or that the clause is unenforceable. The 30-day notice clause can bar contract claims if Granite missed the deadline, but it likely does not bar tort claims and may be excused if Summit had actual notice. The $250,000 inventory loss may be direct or consequential depending on the contract language; a cap on 'liability' may cover both, but ambiguity is construed against the drafter. Summit should not assume the cap resolves the case; it should evaluate insurance coverage and indemnity.
3. What risk-management and dispute-resolution strategy should Summit adopt now?
Read the worked answer
Summit should notify its liability insurer immediately, preserve the HVAC unit and maintenance records, and avoid destructive testing. It should review the contract for indemnity, insurance, and additional-insured requirements. It should move to compel arbitration and stay litigation, but prepare for a motion to sever the class waiver or litigate arbitrability. In parallel, it should assess exposure beyond the $10,000 cap, including the employee injury, and consider early mediation to avoid a class action. It should audit other HVAC units for the same leak risk and document corrective action. A risk register should track contractual caps, insurance limits, and notice deadlines. Finally, it should revise its standard contract to include clear bolded arbitration terms, delegations, and mutual caps.