 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
ESTABLISHED IN THE PRE-ARBITRATION ORDER; (5) PROGRESSIVE DID NOT ASSERT THE WORKERS COMPENSATION OFFSET IN ITS AUGUST 22 1997 RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FO
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
CONTRACT COURT ALASKA FRAUD STATUTE MCKINLEY LAW ARBITRATION CLAUSE AGREEMENT PRIMA PAINT INDUCEMENT SERRATO DISPUTES ARBITRATION ACT CONSTR VALIDITY ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS FAVORS MAJORITY PRESUMPTION REASONS LANGUAGE JUSTICE QUOTING INJURED PARTY UNIFORM ARBITRATION FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CLAIMS SUPREME COURT |
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT ANCHORAGE JOSEPH CHARLES SERRATO, Plaintiff, vs. McKINLEY CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC., an Alaska Corporation, and ROBERT B. GILLAM, Defendants. Case No. 3AN-99-05501 Civil DECISION Summary Joseph Serrato worked as an independent contractor investment broker for McKinley Capital ture commissions. He asserts that he gave up his commissions in exchange for a lucrative, long term ired him 15 months later, Serrato sued, alleging several claims including that McKinley committed The employment agreement requires arbitration of all disputes arising "in connection order arbitration of Serrato's claims. But Alaska's arbitration statute requires the court, not the contract exists. Because Serrato's fraud claim challenges the validity of the contract, the court Discussion Alaska's arbitration statute requires enforcement of arbitration agreements, unless there is aSNIPPETS: |
|
|
| | | |
|
|
