# Sears Termite & Pest Control v. Robinson

> Supreme Court of Alabama · May 23, 2003 · 883 So. 2d 153

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9937254

## Case

- **Full name:** Sears Termite Pest Control, Inc. v. Abby Robinson.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Alabama
- **Decided:** May 23, 2003
- **Citations:** 883 So. 2d 153; 2003 Ala. LEXIS 160; 2003 WL 21205646
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Moore
- **Judges:** Lyons, Moore
- **Cited by:** 12 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9937254

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- rejecting the argument that a limitation in a contract against recovery of consequential and indirect damages, including emotional-distress damages, was unconscionable

## Opinion text

I must dissent from the majority's decision to reverse the trial court's order denying the motion to compel arbitration in this case. The question addressed in the majority opinion — whether an arbitration provision is void for disclaiming indirect and consequential damages — is a secondary issue that need not be reached in this case. Congress has not declared the regulation of pest control companies to be an activity that "involves [interstate] commerce." 9 U.S.C. § 2 . The Federal Arbitration Act does not negate the provisions of § 8-1-41 (3), Ala. Code 1975, which prohibits the specific enforcement of predispute arbitration agreements in contracts. See my dissent in Selma Medical Center v. Fontenot , 824 So.2d 668 , 676 (Ala. 2002) (Moore, C.J., dissenting). We are entitled to " affirm the trial court if its ruling is correct on any valid ground or rationale, even one rejected or not considered by the trial court." Rogers Found. Repair, Inc. v. Powell , 748 So.2d 869 , 872 (Ala. 1999). Thus, in my view, the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to compel arbitration should be affirmed because federal law is not controlling in this case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9937254. Public record. Not legal advice.