RENDERED: APRIL 29, 2022; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2021-CA-0227-MR
LP PRESTONSBURG RIVERVIEW,
LLC D/B/A RIVERVIEW HEALTH
CARE CENTER; LP O HOLDINGS,
LLC; SIGNATURE HEALTHCARE
CLINICAL CONSULTING
SERVICES, LLC; SIGNATURE
HEALTHCARE CONSULTING
SERVICES, LLC; MISSY ALLEN,
ADMINISTRATOR; JENNIFER
MOORE, APRN; KIM BATES;
DEBBIE HALL; VIVIAN BOYD;
KRYSTAL COLLINS; STEPHANIE
GREER; TRACY LEMASTER;
JESSICA SLONE; VHONDA
DOTSON; DEBORAH OUSLEY;
TENA BAILEY; JESSICA
HACKWORTH; HEATHER
BRUMBAUGH; AND JOYCE BITTEN APPELLANTS
APPEAL FROM FLOYD CIRCUIT COURT
v. HONORABLE JOHNNY RAY HARRIS, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 18-CI-00490
DR. PHILLIP SIMPSON AND
CHRISTINA SIMPSON APPELLEES
OPINION
REVERSING AND REMANDING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: CALDWELL, GOODWINE, AND LAMBERT, JUDGES.
LAMBERT, JUDGE: LP Prestonsburg Riverview, LLC d/b/a Riverview Health
Care Center, along with several other limited liability companies and individually
named employees (collectively, “Riverview”), have appealed pursuant to Kentucky
Revised Statutes (KRS) 417.220 from the January 28, 2021, order of the Floyd
Circuit Court denying the motion to compel arbitration. We reverse and remand.
The underlying matter began with the filing of a complaint by Dr.
Philip1 Simpson (Simpson) and his wife, Christina Simpson (Mrs. Simpson),
seeking damages for injuries Simpson incurred during his stay at Riverview, a
nursing and rehabilitation facility.2 He claims he was not given the proper care and
attention during his stay, which resulted in serious personal injury as well as
physical and mental pain and suffering. Mrs. Simpson’s claim was for loss of
consortium. They sought both compensatory and punitive damages in the prayer
for relief.
1
The notice of appeal incorrectly spells Simpson’s first name as Phillip.
2
The Simpsons also named Highlands Regional Medical Center, Chad Patterson, MD, and Larry
Leslie, MD, as defendants in their complaint. These defendants are not involved in the present
appeal.
-2-
In lieu of an answer, Riverview filed a motion to compel arbitration
and stay the Simpsons’ action pursuant to 9 United States Code (USC) § 2 et seq.
and KRS 417.060(1). Riverview stated that Simpson was a resident of the facility
on two occasions. On both of these occasions, he signed an “Agreement to
Informally Resolve and Arbitrate All Disputes” contract (the arbitration
agreements), dated July 3 and July 27, 2017. Each provided, in relevant part, as
follows:
RESIDENT, FACILITY, AND ANY OTHER PERSON
SIGNING THIS DOCUMENT UNDERSTAND AND
AGREE THAT:
1. If a dispute or legal claim of any kind (including a
class or representative action or claim) arises between
the parties signing this agreement (collectively a
“dispute”):
• We will first try and resolve the dispute informally
between ourselves.
• If we do not succeed, we will mediate the dispute.
• If mediation is not successful, we will arbitrate the
dispute.
2. The arbitrator will be a neutral person who will decide
our dispute, and who we agree:
• Can award either one of us the same damages as a
court could.
• Will apply Kentucky law and Rules of Civil
Procedure and Rules of Evidence.
-3-
• Will decide all questions about this agreement,
including but not limited [to] whether the person(s)
signing it has proper authority and whether it is
enforceable.
• His/her decision(s) will be FINAL.
THIS MEANS THAT NO ONE WILL
FILE A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE OTHER,
AND THAT EACH PARTY IS GIVING UP,
OR WAIVING, THE RIGHT TO FILE A
LAWSUIT AND HAVE A JUDGE OR A JURY
DECIDE THE DISPUTE AND/OR ANY
ISSUES ABOUT THIS AGREEMENT. This
also means we agree to completely avoid the court
system and that we do not want a judge or jury
deciding any part of our dispute. We can still talk
about our dispute, however, with any federal or
state agency, outside the court system.
3. The mediation and/or arbitration will take place in
KENTUCKY, in the county where the Facility is
located. We can have an attorney represent each of
us.
4. This agreement involves interstate commerce, and the
Federal Arbitration Act and the Kentucky Uniform
Arbitration Act will govern and control it, and any
related arbitration proceeding. If there is any material,
substantive conflict or inconsistency between these
two Acts, the Federal Arbitration Act will control.
5. To start the informal dispute, mediation, or arbitration
process, one of us must:
• Send a request in writing to the other (via certified
mail, return receipt) and include a detailed account
of the dispute, a proposed resolution, and what
-4-
process is being requested (informal, mediation, or
arbitration).
• If informal resolution is requested, the parties will
schedule a mutually convenient time to discuss the
dispute and possible resolution(s).
• If mediation or arbitration is requested, the parties
will discuss and agree upon the person who will
mediate or arbitrate the dispute, and when
mediation or arbitration occur. We agree that the
arbitrator will be an independent, disinterested, and
qualified attorney with at least 7 years’ experience
in nursing home care. If we cannot agree on an
arbitrator, then each of us will nominate our own
arbitrator candidate, and together, the candidates
will agree upon and select another independent,
disinterested, and qualified attorney with at least 7
years’ experience in nursing home care.
6. This agreement will bind any person or entity that is
later appointed to act on my/our behalf. It will also
remain valid and in effect if one of us later becomes
disabled or incompetent. We agree it will be upheld
and enforced against our heirs, beneficiaries, estates,
estate representatives, successors, statutory wrongful
death beneficiaries, and assigns.
7. This agreement will also remain valid, and of full
force and effect, even if the Resident is discharged and
then later re-admitted to the Facility. It will also apply
to all of the Resident’s subsequent admissions and
stays.
8. We represent to each other that we have the proper
authority to sign this agreement, and we each rely
upon the other’s representation.
-5-
9. If any part of this agreement is found invalid or
unenforceable, we agree that all remaining parts of it
will remain in full force and effect.
10. We understand and agree that either one of us can
revoke or cancel this agreement by, and only by,
providing written notice to the other within thirty
(30) days of the date we sign this document.
[Section to be completed if the resident was not signing
the document himself is omitted.]
SIGN HERE!
I HAVE READ THIS DOCUMENT, UNDERSTAND
IT, HAVE HAD THE CHANCE TO ASK
QUESTIONS, AND ACKNOWLEDGE MY RIGHT
TO SPEAK WITH AN ATTORNEY ABOUT THIS.
I UNDERSTAND THIS AGREEMENT IS
REQUIRED FOR ADMISSION TO THE
FACILITY. I VOLUNTARILY CONSENT TO ALL
OF ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS. I HAVE
RECEIVED A COPY OF IT, OR UNDERSTAND
AND AGREE THAT THE FACILITY WILL
PROVIDE A COPY TO ME UPON MY REQUEST.
The July 3, 2017, agreement contains the initials “PS” on the date line, and it was
signed by facility representative Stephanie Greer and witnessed by Jocelyn Bolin.
The July 27, 2017, agreement contains Simpson’s signature on the Resident’s
Signature line and was again signed by facility representative Ms. Greer.
Riverview stated that Simpson filed the complaint with the court as
well as with the Medical Review Panel Branch of the Cabinet for Health and
Family Services without initiating mediation or arbitration as required by the
-6-
arbitration agreements. By proffering the arbitration agreements, Riverview met
its burden of establishing the existence of such an agreement. Therefore, it
requested that the court enforce the arbitration agreements, compel arbitration of
Simpson’s claims, and stay (or dismiss) the action pending arbitration.
In his response, Simpson stated that he did not remember signing an
arbitration agreement and that even if his initials were on the first agreement, he
had not been given the opportunity to read and understand the contract in relation
to the arbitration agreement. He also argued that the arbitration agreement was
unconscionable. He included an affidavit with his response in which he stated that
he would never have knowingly signed an arbitration agreement. He stated in his
affidavit:
1) I do not remember signing any documents during
either of my stays at the Defendant’s nursing home
facility. If I would have signed a document, I would
not have marked an “X,” nor would have I initialed
my name. I would have signed a signature similar to
the one on this Affidavit.
2) Even if I did sign any documents, I was never given a
chance to read or understand any documents. I have
bad vision, and use a magnifying glass to read, so
even if I did sign something, I would have no idea
what it would have been at the time.
3) During my first stay at the nursing home, I had been
transferred from the hospital to the nursing home for
care, and was taken directly back to a hospital room. I
do not recall being asked to sign papers before being
taken back to the room.
-7-
4) During one of my stays, although I do not recall
which one, a lady, whose name I also do not recall,
brought in some paperwork. When I asked what the
papers were, she said it was “just some admission
papers.” She did not explain to me what the content
of the paperwork was when I directly asked her.
Since I cannot see well without a magnifying glass, I
did not know what these papers were. I also do not
remember if I even signed these papers at that time as
both of my times being admitted to the nursing home
were during stressful times.
5) I would never have knowingly signed an arbitration
agreement. I am somewhat familiar with the effect of
an arbitration agreement, so I would never have
knowingly signed away my rights.
In its reply, Riverview pointed out that Simpson never denied that he
had signed the arbitration agreements. Riverview also argued that Simpson was
equitably estopped from attempting to avoid his obligations under the arbitration
agreements. In support, Riverview included the affidavits of Riverview employee
Stephanie Greer, who had worked as a social worker there for 14 years, and
Riverview Office Manager Jocelyn Bolin, who were both present when Simpson
signed the first arbitration agreement. Ms. Greer was also present when he signed
the second arbitration agreement upon his readmission. In her affidavit, Ms. Greer
stated that the arbitration agreement had been explained to Simpson each time it
was presented to him. She brought Ms. Bolin in to witness Simpson’s signature
for the July 3, 2017, agreement “as he advised he would only sign with his
-8-
initials.” She said that “Dr. Simpson clearly understood what he was signing that
day” and recalls Dr. Simpson making comments that “he was only signing the
Arbitration Agreement because it ‘had loopholes’ and that the agreement ‘didn’t
mean anything.’” In her affidavit, Ms. Bolin stated that she witnessed Simpson
sign the July 3 arbitration agreement with his initials, PS, and that “Mr. Simpson
clearly understood what he was signing that day” and even commented that he was
only signing the Arbitration Agreement “because there were ways around [it.]”
Riverview argued that Simpson had failed to meet his burden to rebut
the presumption that the arbitration agreements were valid or to establish that the
agreements were unconscionable. Riverview specifically pointed out that both
parties were waiving their right to file a lawsuit, that any arbitration would take
place in Kentucky, and that either party could revoke the agreement by written
notice within thirty days.
By order entered March 6, 2019, the court denied the motion to
compel as it was not ripe for a ruling. The court stated that, based upon the
affidavits filed, further discovery was required. Riverview moved the court to
reconsider this ruling as it may require it to engage in litigation conduct that would
imperil its right to arbitrate the claim. The court granted the motion and set aside
the prior ruling. Instead, the court held the motion to compel arbitration in
-9-
abeyance and permitted the parties to conduct limited discovery on the issue of the
arbitrability of Simpson’s claims.
Simpson was deposed on January 15, 2020. He testified that he was a
retired chiropractor. When he was initially admitted to Riverview, he had not been
diagnosed with any kind of cognitive deficit, nor did he have any issues with
cognitive functioning. He did state that there had been confusion and stress related
to his five-day hospital stay before his admission. He had not been diagnosed with
dementia or Alzheimer’s disease, nor any condition that would affect his ability to
recall information. He was also not on any medication that would affect his ability
to understand any questions the attorney might ask him. Simpson testified that he
had been treated since 2014 for proliferative diabetic retinopathy in both eyes,
which caused him to need a magnifying glass to read.
Simpson went on to testify about his first admission to Riverview in
July 2017. He recalled women bringing in documents for him to sign, including an
arbitration agreement, but he did not recall signing them. He did not have his
magnifier or glasses when he was admitted on July 3. He said he was not really
familiar with what an arbitration agreement was, and the women did not offer to
read the document to him when he told them he could not see it. Simpson stated
that he thought an arbitration agreement “seemed like a weakening of my rights”
and that he would not have signed such a document if he had known it was an
-10-
arbitration agreement. He denied placing his initials on the July 3 arbitration
agreement and did not believe the initials were in his handwriting.
Regarding the July 27 arbitration agreement, which included a
signature on the signature line, Simpson stated that “what I’m signing to is totally
unclear to me” and that “it could have been in the stack with lots of other things[,]”
but that “I don’t recall signing it[.]” He did not deny that his signature was on the
July 27 arbitration agreement; he only claimed that he did not recall signing it.
During the deposition, Simpson reviewed other documents from his July 3
admission to Riverview that included his initials. He did not recall using his
initials to execute any of these documents. He could not tell whether the initials
were in his handwriting and later denied that the handwriting was his. He also
denied telling any employees at Riverview that he understood what an arbitration
agreement was and that he knew how to get out of one or that he knew there were
loopholes.
Riverview filed a supplemental reply to Simpson’s response to the
motion to compel arbitration on December 2, 2020, which included a copy of
Simpson’s deposition and supplemental affidavits from Ms. Greer and Ms. Bolin.
While Simpson had noticed depositions for Ms. Greer and Ms. Bolin, they were
never taken.
-11-
In her supplemental affidavit, Ms. Greer stated that Simpson had been
wearing his glasses when he was presented with the July 3 arbitration agreement,
that she personally went through the arbitration agreement with him, that she did
not refuse to read that document to him, and that when she asked if he had any
questions, Simpson said he did not and added that “there were ‘loopholes.’” She
brought in Ms. Bolin as a witness when Simpson told her he would only sign with
his initials; he said he was using his initials because he was tired. Ms. Greer
placed the “X” on the signature line so that Simpson would know where to sign.
He did not mention that he had been diagnosed with proliferative diabetic
retinopathy, and she described him as cooperative during the admission process.
Ms. Greer said that Simpson “clearly understood what he was signing that day”
and recalled him commenting that he was only signing the arbitration agreement
“because it ‘had loopholes’ and that the agreement ‘didn’t mean anything.’” She
said that Simpson called her to be readmitted on July 27 and that he did not appear
to be confused or in any distress at that time. She again explained the nature of the
arbitration agreement to him, and she had an independent recollection of Simpson
signing his name that day.
In her supplemental affidavit, Ms. Bolin stated that she had been in his
room when Simpson was presented with the July 3 arbitration agreement, that the
agreement was explained to him, and that she witnessed him using his initials,
-12-
“PS,” to sign it. She said that he had used his initials because he was tired.
Simpson never said that he did not understand what he was signing, and he did not
ask anyone to read it to him. She stated that Simpson “clearly understood” what he
was signing, and she recalled that he said, “that there were ‘ways around the
arbitration agreement.’”
Based upon this evidence, Riverview asserted that Simpson should be
bound by the arbitration agreements. He did not deny that his signature was on the
July 27 agreement; he merely stated that he did not recall signing it. And as to the
July 3 agreement, Riverview argued that it had submitted evidence that Simpson
had used his initials for other admission documents, that he had reviewed the
agreement with a Riverview representative, and that he had executed the
agreement in the presence of two representatives. Riverview again argued that
Simpson was equitably estopped from avoiding his obligations under the
agreements based upon his statements that there were ways around the arbitration
agreement. And it again argued that the agreement was not unconscionable.
In his response, Simpson again denied that he had signed the
arbitration agreements. He also pointed out differences in the initials in the
different documents. And he continued to deny that he had been given the
opportunity to read, understand, or ask questions about the arbitration agreement
based upon his eyesight limitations. Finally, Simpson asserted that he attempted to
-13-
resolve his claim against Riverview by first submitting a settlement package setting
forth his claims, injuries, medical treatment, and associated bills, and then by
reaching out to Riverview to mediate. Mediation was set but subsequently
canceled by Riverview. He concluded,
[I]ndividuals and families are pressured into signing
boiler-plate, all-encompassing arbitration agreements
without having any idea what rights they are giving up.
Patients are not given any information as to what they are
actually giving up, and are only told what the nursing
home representatives and employees choose to tell them.
The contract in the instant case has a clause which
purports to allow the patient of a right to “speak with an
attorney” prior to signing the agreement. However, this
practice is not feasible. Nursing homes hold all of the
power in these situations, and they unfairly take
advantage of desperate people in need of care – and if
patients do exercise their rights according to the
agreement, they are denied care and admission into the
nursing home facility.
On January 29, 2021, the circuit court entered an order denying
Riverview’s motion to compel. The court recognized that “[a]s indicated from the
testimony of the parties there appears to be a factual dispute as to whether or not
Dr. Simpson executed the arbitration agreement, or in the alternative, understood
what he was signing due to his failing eyesight.” The court found:
It is without dispute that Mr. Simpson did not
possess his magnifying glass or his additional visual aids
which would have allowed him to properly read the
arbitration agreement in question. The Court takes note
that Phillip Simpson may be an educated man, as put
forth by the defense, however, it is apparent he did not
-14-
have the tools necessary to properly read and review the
documents in question. An arbitration agreement waives
the constitutional right to a jury trial by the Plaintiff in
this case. The waiver of a constitutional right must be
examined closely and under scrutiny. There appears to
be a dispute in the testimony of the parties. What is
undisputed is Mr. Simpson did not possess the tools
necessary to allow him to examine the document. The
Court notes some of the signatures appear to be crooked
and initials appear to be in the improper line as in the
July 3 agreement.
Based on the finding that Simpson had not had the opportunity to properly review
and understand the arbitration agreement, the court denied the motion to compel
arbitration. This appeal now follows.
In KRS Chapter 417, the General Assembly codified Kentucky’s
Uniform Arbitration Act (KUAA). KRS 417.050 states, in relevant part: “A
written agreement to submit any existing controversy to arbitration or a provision
in written contract to submit to arbitration any controversy thereafter arising
between the parties is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable, save upon such grounds
as exist at law for the revocation of any contract.” KRS 417.060(1), in turn,
provides:
On application of a party showing an agreement
described in KRS 417.050, and the opposing party’s
refusal to arbitrate, the court shall order the parties to
proceed with arbitration. If the opposing party denies the
existence of the agreement to arbitrate, the court shall
proceed summarily to the determination of the issue so
raised. The court shall order arbitration if found for the
moving party; otherwise, the application shall be denied.
-15-
“[T]he party seeking to enforce an agreement has the burden of establishing its
existence, but once prima facie evidence of the agreement has been presented, the
burden shifts to the party seeking to avoid the agreement. The party seeking to
avoid the arbitration agreement has a heavy burden.” Louisville Peterbilt, Inc. v.
Cox, 132 S.W.3d 850, 857 (Ky. 2004) (citing Valley Constr. Co., Inc., v. Perry
Host Management Co., Inc., 796 S.W.2d 365, 368 (Ky. App. 1990)).
KRS 417.220(1)(a) permits an appeal from an order denying a motion
to compel arbitration and provides in (2) that the appeal “shall be taken in the
manner and to the same extent as from orders or judgments in a civil action.”
[O]ur review of a trial court’s ruling in a KRS 417.060
proceeding is according to usual appellate standards.
That is, we defer to the trial court’s factual findings,
upsetting them only if clearly erroneous or if unsupported
by substantial evidence, but we review without deference
the trial court’s identification and application of legal
principles.
Conseco Finance Servicing Corp. v. Wilder, 47 S.W.3d 335, 340 (Ky. App. 2001).
Riverview first argues that it met its burden to produce valid
arbitration agreements. We agree that it “met the prima facie burden by providing
copies of written and signed agreements to arbitrate.” Louisville Peterbilt, 132
S.W.3d at 857. Therefore, the burden shifted to Simpson to establish that the
arbitration agreements it produced were not valid. Id.
-16-
The circuit court in this case denied the motion to compel solely based
upon its factual finding that Simpson did not have the equipment necessary to read
the agreements when they were presented to him. Riverview argues that, as a
matter of law, this does not render the arbitration agreements invalid, and therefore
Simpson failed to rebut the presumption of validity. Under the circumstances of
this case, we agree.
First, Riverview contends that Simpson had a duty to make himself
aware of the contents of the arbitration agreements. “This application was made
and signed by appellant, and while he says he did not read it, he must be charged
with having knowledge of what it contained. It was his duty to read it before
signing it, or at least to know its contents.” Miles v. National Union Fire Ins. Co.
of Pittsburg, Pa., 201 Ky. 179, 256 S.W. 7, 8 (1923). The former Court of Appeals
later held:
“The rule that one who signs a contract is presumed to
know its contents has been applied even to contracts of
illiterate persons on the ground that if such persons are
unable to read, they are negligent if they fail to have the
contract read to them. If a person cannot read the
instrument, it is as much his duty to procure some
reliable person to read and explain it to him, before he
signs it, as it would be to read it before he signed it if he
were able to do so, and his failure to obtain a reading and
explanation of it is such gross negligence as will estop
him from avoiding it on the ground that he was ignorant
of its contents.[”] 6 R.C.L. Contracts, § 43.
Clark v. Brewer, 329 S.W.2d 384, 386 (Ky. 1959).
-17-
And in Jewell v. Massillon Engine & Thresher Co., 198 Ky. 22, 247
S.W. 1117 (1923), the former Court of Appeals discussed the issue and concluded
that a party has a duty to procure the necessary equipment to read a contract:
This was the only issue of fact in the case; that is,
whether the agent of appellee company fraudulently
omitted to read to appellant, Jewell, all the terms of the
contract. If he did do so after appellant had requested
him to read the contract, he was guilty of such wrong as
would, upon seasonable application, have warranted a
court of equity in setting aside the contract. The
evidence of appellant, Jewell, who alone testified, shows
very clearly that he could at the time read, but that he did
not have his glasses with him, and that he asked the agent
of appellee company to read the contract to him, and that
he relied upon the agent to read the whole of the contract.
His evidence is not entirely satisfactory upon what parts
of the contract were read by appellee’s agent to appellant.
He is a little indefinite and not entirely sure about the
particular parts of the contract which were read to him
and which were omitted by the agent. He admits,
however, that at the time of the making of the contract
the agent of the company gave him a copy thereof, which
he carried with him to his home. This was in February.
It must be presumed that appellant had glasses at home
with which he could see to read, and it was his duty,
under the terms of the contract, to read and understand it
within a reasonable time after returning home and after
he had procured glasses and was able to see to read it.
As will be noticed from the paragraph of the contract
above copied, appellant, Jewell, had six days after the
delivery of the tractor at his place in which to try it out
and accept or reject it. He now says it was very defective
and wholly worthless. Although it was purchased by him
in February it was not delivered at his place until the 3d
of April. During that time he should have examined his
contract. He had no right to rely upon the reading by the
-18-
agent of the company when he had full opportunity to
examine it before the tractor arrived.
Id. at 1117-18.
In the present case, Simpson argues that he did not have a duty to
make himself aware of the contents of the arbitration agreements because he was
not aware that they existed. However, while Simpson testified that no one had
offered to read the arbitration agreements to him, he did not ask anyone to do so,
and the testimony of Ms. Greer establishes that she went through the July 3
arbitration agreement with him and explained the July 27 agreement as well. The
arbitration agreements contained 30-day revocation clauses, which would have
provided Simpson with plenty of time to obtain the necessary equipment that
would enable him to read the documents. We reject Simpson’s position that
Riverview had a duty to foresee that he required specialized medical equipment to
read the arbitration agreements based upon its possession of his medical records.
In addition, our review of the record reflects that Simpson was aware
of the arbitration clauses. In his supplemental response to the motion to compel,
after discussing the portion of the arbitration agreement setting out the process to
be followed in the event of a claim, Simpson stated:
[I]t should be noted that Plaintiff did take steps to try to
bring this action/dispute to an amicable conclusion.
First, the Plaintiff submitted a settlement package to the
Defendants setting out Plaintiff’s claims, injuries,
medical treatment and medical bills. No offer from the
-19-
Defendant was forthcoming. Secondly, Plaintiff reached
out to the Defendants to mediate this matter. Mediation
was set, but subsequently cancelled by Defendants.
This admission in a court filing appears to establish that Simpson was aware of the
existence of the arbitration agreements, despite his claims that he lacked
knowledge of them and did not recall signing them.
Based upon the circumstances of this case, we hold that the circuit
court erred as a matter of law in denying the motion to compel arbitration due to its
finding that Simpson did not have the opportunity to properly review and
understand the arbitration agreements.
In addition, we agree with Riverview that Simpson failed to establish
that he had not signed the arbitration agreements or that the agreements were
unconscionable. Thus, Simpson has failed in his burden to rebut the validity of the
arbitration agreements Riverview filed.
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the order of the Floyd Circuit
Court, and this matter is remanded for the entry of an order granting Riverview’s
motion to compel arbitration.
ALL CONCUR.
-20-
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANTS: BRIEF FOR APPELLEES:
John David Dyche Glenn Martin Hammond
Leigh V. Graves Pikeville, Kentucky
Louisville, Kentucky
-21-