CIM Insurance v. Armettia Peach
- Respondents' Brief in Opposition (05/01/2005)
When Armettia Peach bought a car in 2002, she signed a contract with the car dealership to purchase an "extended protection plan" through CIM Insurance. She later sued CIM alleging that the contract was a CIM form contract that contained mispresentations in violation of state consumer fraud statutes. CIM moved to compel arbitration, relying on an arbitration clause in Ms. Peach's contract with the dealership. The Illinois courts rejected CIM's attempt to compel arbitration because CIM was not a signatory to the contract. The question presented is whether a non-signatory to a consumer contract, when sued by a signatory for conduct related to the contract, can compel arbitration on an agency or equitable estoppel theory. Assisting the plaintiff's counsel, we prepared the brief in opposition to certiorari. The Court denied the petition.