Broemmer v. Abortion Services of Phoenix, Ltd.

Supreme Court of Arizona, En Banc · 1992 · Contracts

ContractsArbitrationAdhesion ContractsReasonable Expectationsarbitration agreementadhesion contractreasonable expectationsmedical services

Facts

Plaintiff, a 21-year-old Iowa resident who was 16 or 17 weeks pregnant, went to defendant clinic for an abortion while experiencing considerable emotional and physical turmoil. At the clinic, she was separated from her mother and told to complete three forms in less than five minutes, including a standardized agreement requiring arbitration of any dispute arising from fees or services and requiring arbitrators appointed by the AAA to be licensed obstetrician/gynecologists. Clinic staff did not explain the arbitration agreement, did not indicate she could refuse to sign it, and did not provide copies of the forms. After the procedure, plaintiff suffered a punctured uterus and later sued for malpractice, though she did not recall signing the arbitration agreement.

Issue

Under the undisputed facts of this case, was the pre-treatment arbitration agreement enforceable against plaintiff? More specifically, could an adhesive arbitration agreement be enforced when it fell outside the plaintiff's reasonable expectations?

Rule

Written arbitration agreements are enforceable under A.R.S. § 12-1501 only to the extent they are enforceable under general contract law. A contract of adhesion is not unenforceable per se, but it will not be enforced if it does not fall within the reasonable expectations of the adhering party; the court also looks to unconscionability, though that inquiry is unnecessary if reasonable expectations defeat enforcement.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Tucson, Nina Velasquez went to a private imaging center for a same-day diagnostic procedure. At check-in, staff told her she had to sign a packet of preprinted forms to be seen, did not invite negotiation, and included a separate form requiring arbitration of any dispute over the center's services.

Under the majority's approach, which is the strongest reason to characterize the arbitration agreement as a contract of adhesion?

Explanation. The majority defined an adhesion contract as a standardized form offered on essentially a take-it-or-leave-it basis, without a realistic opportunity to bargain, under conditions where the consumer can obtain the desired service only by acquiescing. The court did not hold that medical contracts or arbitration clauses are inherently adhesive, nor that failure to read alone establishes adhesion. (Derived from Broemmer v. Abortion Services of Phoenix, Ltd. (n.d.).)