Kindred Nursing Ctrs. Ltd. P'ship v. Clark

Background

A nursing‑home company, Kindred, required residents to sign arbitration agreements. Two women—one the wife, one the daughter of residents—signed those agreements using powers of attorney to act for their relatives. After the residents died, the estates sued Kindred in Kentucky state court over alleged poor care. The Kentucky Supreme Court held both arbitration agreements invalid under a state rule that demanded an agent have specific, explicit authority to waive a principal’s right to go to court or have a jury.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court addressed whether the Federal Arbitration Act requires arbitration agreements to be treated like other contracts. The Court said yes: a state rule that singles out arbitration by demanding special clear language for powers of attorney violates the Act’s equal‑treatment principle. The majority explained that the Kentucky rule was tied to the defining trait of arbitration—waiving the right to sue and have a jury—and so treated arbitration agreements differently from ordinary contracts. The Court therefore reversed the Kentucky decision for one estate, enforced one arbitration agreement, vacated the other judgment, and sent that matter back to state court for reconsideration.

Real world impact

The ruling makes it harder for state courts to apply special rules that block arbitration agreements signed by legal representatives. Nursing homes and other businesses that use arbitration clauses may more often have those clauses enforced against estates and families. But the Court did not decide every question: it left one estate’s result uncertain and returned that case to the Kentucky courts to reexamine the power of attorney without the now‑invalid clear‑statement rule. That re‑examination could change the outcome.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Thomas dissented, arguing the Federal Arbitration Act does not apply in state court proceedings and would have left the Kentucky Supreme Court’s ruling in place.