Arbitration Denied: Third Appellate District Holds Arbitration Clause Procedurally and Substantively Unconscionable

Red x next to Denied

Attorneys Stephen M. Tye and Lawrence S. Zucker II analyze Cabatit v Sunnova Energy Corporation.

February 15, 2021
Stephen M. Tye & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel

In Cabatit v Sunnova Energy Corporation, the Third Appellate District held that an arbitration clause in a solar power lease agreement was unenforceable because it was procedurally and substantively unconscionable.

In Cabatit, Mr. and Ms. Cabitat entered into a solar power lease agreement (the “Agreement”) with Sunnova Energy Corporation (“Sunnova”). Ms. Cabitat, who signed the agreement, speaks English but does not understand complicated or technical terms. The salesperson scrolled through the agreement language and Ms. Cabatit initialed where the salesperson indicated, even though she did not understand most of what he was saying. The salesperson did not explain anything about the arbitration clause nor did he provide Ms. Cabatit with a copy of the Agreement.

Reprinted courtesy of Stephen M. Tye, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel
Mr. Tye may be contacted at stye@hbblaw.com
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com



714.701.9180

Arrange No Cost Consultation

 

Construction Defect Journal is aggregated from a variety of news sources, article submissions, contributors, and information from industry professionals.

No content on this site should be construed as legal advice or expert opinion. By viewing this site you agree to be bound by its terms and conditions

 

Copyright 2021 - Construction Defect Journal – All Rights Reserved