The Terminix International Co., L.P., et al. v. St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, [Ms. SC-2024-0626, Oct. 24, 2025] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2025). The Court (Mendheim, J.; Shaw, Bryan, Sellers, and Cook, JJ., concur; Stewart, C.J., concurs in the result, with opinion; Wise, McCool, and Lewis, JJ., concur in the result) reverses the Mobile Circuit Court’s order denying a motion to compel arbitration of all claims asserted by St. Paul’s Episcopal Church (“St. Paul’s”) against Terminix International Co., L.P. (“Terminix”), and Faith Justice, and Ken Stroh, who are agents of Terminix.
The lawsuit involved termite damage to the St. Paul’s church which was covered by a 1982 contract that did not contain an arbitration provision. St. Paul’s argued that it was not bound to arbitrate the claims for termite damage to the church by a provision in the 2006 agreement with Terminix covering an education building. The Court rejects this argument based on the following exceptionally broad language requiring arbitration in the 2006 agreement:
“12. MANDATORY ARBITRATION. [St. Paul’s] and Terminix agree that any claim, dispute or controversy (‘Claim’) between or against the other or the employees, agents or assigns of the other, and any Claim arising from or relating to this agreement or the relationships which result from this agreement, including but not limited to any tort or statutory Claim, shall be resolved by neutral binding arbitration by the National Arbitration Forum (‘NAF’)...”
Ms. *9.
Chief Justice Stewart’s special concurrence notes “the text of the FAA does not compel arbitration of disputes that are wholly unrelated to the contract containing the arbitration agreement. Therefore, in such cases, the FAA does not actually conflict with Alabama’s public policy against the enforcement of predispute arbitration agreements. In other words, if the FAA does not compel enforcement of a particular arbitration agreement, Alabama law certainly does not.” Ms. *24. However, because St. Paul’s did not challenge the applicability of the FAA, the Chief Justice concurred in the result. Ibid.