Whether timeliness defenses should be decided by the trial court or by the arbitrator; The Uniform Arbitration Act (UAA); MCL 691.1686(3); The Michigan Arbitration Act (MAA) (repealed); SCA Servs, Inc v General Mill Supply Co; Iron Cnty v Sundberg, Carlson & Assoc, Inc; Amtower v William C Roney & Co (On Remand); American Fed’n of State, Cnty & Mun Employees, Council 25, AFL-CIO v Hamtramck Hous Comm’n

The court held that the “question of whether timeliness defenses, such as the statute of limitations and laches, bars enforcement of an arbitration agreement generally is a question for the arbitrator, not the trial court.” Thus, it reversed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition to defendant and denial of plaintiff’s motion for partial summary disposition, and remanded. After plaintiff’s decedent was struck by a motor vehicle, a dispute arose over the no-fault benefits defendant was required to pay. This was the second of two lawsuits filed in the matter. In the prior case, in 2009 the parties entered into an agreement for binding arbitration and a stipulated order for dismissal. In this case, plaintiff “sought a court order determining that there is an enforceable arbitration agreement between plaintiff and defendant, and directing those two parties to proceed with arbitration.” Defendant successfully moved for summary disposition, arguing “that the complaint for arbitration was barred by the six-year breach of contract statute of limitations” and by the doctrine of laches. The court noted that the issue before it was “whether timeliness defenses such as the statute of limitations and laches should be decided by the court or by the arbitrator.” After considering both “binding and persuasive authorities,” it concluded “that under both the MAA and the UAA, timeliness defenses to a request for arbitration, such as the statute of limitations and laches, are generally questions for the arbitrator, not the court, to decide.”