We have previously written about situations where the arbitration company (AAA, AHLA or NHLA) declines to arbitrate claims unless the parties sign post-dispute agreement to arbitrate. In other words, these companies won't hear some cases where someone signed an arbitration clause and then had a loss.

The Idaho Supreme Court issued this recent decision in Deeds v. Regence Blueshield of Idaho. A dispute arose between parties to a health care insurance policy and the arbitration clause was invoked. The clause mandates, "...arbitration in accordance with the applicable rules of the American Arbitration Association [AAA]..."

Under a recent policy, AAA declared, for these kinds of cases, that "it will no longer accept the administration of cases involving individual patients without a post-dispute agreement to arbitrate."

But does "in accordance with the applicable rules" mean you have to actually use an arbitrator from the AAA? No, says the Idaho Supreme Court. "This Court sees no reason why the arbitration cannot proceed 'in accordance with the applicable rules of the AAA' using a different arbitrator."

The Court went on to note that there was "no evidence the AAA itself is central to the agreement to arbitrate." (citing an 11th Circuit case) Finally, the Court noted that Idaho law (like Florida law) has a "savings clause" in the state arbitration code where, if there is a dispute, the court can appoint arbitrators.

Compare the Idaho Supreme Court's opinion of arbitration clauses which require certain arbitrators to the 4th DCA's opinion of the AHLA/NHLA in Blankfeld and Digati.