West Virginia Supreme Court holds U-Haul customer did not consent to arbitration clause

u-haul-signIn a significant decision from the West Virginia Supreme Court, it held that the form contract that U-Haul used did not show that the customer had consented to forced arbitration.

The U-Haul contract has some fine print that says that the consumers acknowledge receiving terms and conditions in an Addendum to the contract.  But the consumers don’t actually receive the Addendum until after they’ve signed all the papers, and the contract is finished. Buried in the fine print inside a pamphlet that is folded into a bunch of sections and shaped like a narrow folder is a mandatory arbitration clause.  The conspicuous and main part of the Addendum pamphlet is devoted to how one returns the equipment she has rented.

The Court held that the arbitration clause in the Addendum was not agreed to by U-Haul’s consumers.  For a good description of the case, read Paul Bland’s blog post here:  http://publicjustice.net/blog/what-does-consent-arbitration-actually-mean.

Steve Larson
An experienced trial lawyer who handles both hourly and contingent fee cases, Steve has expertise in class actions, antitrust litigation, securities litigation, corporate disputes, intellectual property disputes, unfair competition claims, and disputes involving family wealth. Steve regularly represents individuals and businesses in federal and state court and has obtained class-wide recovery in multiple class actions. A veteran practitioner, Steve's clients value his creative approach to resolving complex litigation matters.


Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on google
Share on linkedin

Legal Disclaimer

The information contained in this blog does not constitute legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. We make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained in or linked to this blog.