ILNews

Appellate court affirms arbitration on claims against college

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

With one judge frustrated that Indiana residents and students may have been “hornswoggled” by a college’s advertisements about being accredited, the Indiana Court of Appeals has upheld an order compelling arbitration on a claim that three students were fraudulently induced to enroll because of misrepresentation about that accreditation.

The order comes in the case of Connie Brumley, et al. v. Commonwealth Business College Education Corp., No. 45A04-1002-CT-66, a case from Lake Superior Court.

Three student plaintiffs alleged they were fraudulently induced to enroll in a surgical technology program at Brown Mackie’s Merrillville location by the college’s misrepresentation of its accreditation. Each signed an enrollment agreement and supplemental arbitration form, both of which contained arbitration clauses, and they paid tuition and attended the courses. But at some point they learned of the accreditation issue, and later filed suit alleging breach of express and implied contract, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, and fraud –- on the grounds they wouldn’t be able to obtain the type of surgical jobs they were being trained for.

Brown Mackie moved to compel arbitration based on the signed documents, and the original judge on the case denied the college’s motion to compel arbitration based on the enrollment agreement stating the institution was accredited when it was not. But after the case was consolidated with a similar action and transferred to Superior Judge Gerald Svetanoff, he readdressed the issue and granted the motion to compel arbitration. Though he agreed with his colleague about the enrollment agreement not being able to mandate arbitration based on its validity, Judge Svetanoff found that the rationale didn’t extend to the separate arbitration form that none of the student plaintiffs alleged was false or fraudulent.

The plaintiffs asked for interlocutory appeal, the trial court granted that certification, and the Court of Appeals accepted the appeal and heard arguments March 2.

Even though the Federal Arbitration Act and caselaw allows for arbitration agreements to be invalidated by issues such as fraud or unconscionability, the Indiana appellate panel found that the language of this Brown Mackie arbitration agreement didn’t cross any of those lines.

“We conclude that, because plaintiffs’ action challenges the enrollment agreements in their entirety rather than the arbitration clauses in particular, the plaintiffs’ claims remain subject to arbitration,” Judge Nancy Vaidik wrote.

The appellate panel also ruled on other matters that came up in the appeal, such as Brown Mackie’s need or ability to file a cross-appeal relating to the trial judge’s rationale.

Judge Michael Barnes concurred with a separate opinion, finding the majority was correct and he agreed with the arbitration provisions per se based on precedent from the Supreme Court of the United States. However, he pointed out his concerns with what possibly happened in this case, even though the students’ allegations are still unproven at this point.

“Still, if true, it is plainly evident that Brown Mackie at best was disingenuous in its advertising, and at worst was actively dishonest in touting the surgical technology degree it offered,” he wrote. “Although Brown Mackie trumpeted being ‘accredited’ in its advertising and materials, that ‘accreditation’ allegedly was insufficient to allow graduates to take the required exam for surgical technology certification. Indiana residents likely were hornswoggled here, and I am frustrated that we are powerless to intervene. I must trust that an arbitrator will fairly consider the students’ claims. I concur fully, but grudgingly.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT