Summary
An insurer resisted arbitration because the insured had signed a full-and-final discharge voucher. The Supreme Court upheld appointment of an arbitrator: correspondence over two years and evidence of financial pressure supported a genuine prima facie claim that discharge was involuntary. The appointment court should assess credibility without finally trying the coercion issue.
Issues
- Whether the discharge voucher barred arbitration despite the supported allegation of economic coercion.
- What scrutiny of that allegation was appropriate at the appointment stage.
Held
- A discharge voucher does not invariably bar arbitration. A bald plea of coercion is insufficient, but a genuine dispute supported by material requires prima facie examination. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)
- The insured’s correspondence, banking pressures and prolonged requests for payment supported the alleged involuntary discharge. The application read as a whole articulated that grievance. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21)
- At appointment, the Court must be prima facie satisfied of the plea’s genuineness; it should not conduct a minute final examination that would foreclose the substantive forum. Proof and fuller pleadings belong in arbitration. (¶ 21)
Result
Insurer’s appeal dismissed without costs. The High Court’s appointment of an arbitrator was upheld. The alleged coercion and substantive claims were not finally adjudicated by the Supreme Court.