## Facts

- Maria Ruiz contracted with Service Corporation International and its subsidiary (collectively, SCI) for her brother’s funeral and burial through two written, signed agreements: an Interment Agreement and a Funeral Agreement.
- Each agreement contained an arbitration provision requiring Ruiz to arbitrate any claims “relating to” the agreement, including disputes about interpreting the arbitration clause, under AAA rules.
- The clauses extended to claims against SCI, affiliates, third-party beneficiaries, and employees; the obligation to arbitrate was imposed on Ruiz’s claims, while SCI retained the ability to litigate its own claims in court.
- Ruiz alleged SCI mishandled her brother’s remains and failed to disclose material facts about the condition of the body and the funeral facilities, including alleged nonconsensual embalming, insect infestation during the service, and nonfunctioning air-conditioning.
- Ruiz sued SCI for fraud by nondisclosure in Texas state court.
- SCI moved to compel arbitration and to abate the suit based on the two contracts; the trial court denied the motion, reasoning Ruiz’s fraud claim fell outside the arbitration clauses’ scope.

## Issues

1. Whether SCI proved the existence of valid, enforceable arbitration agreements between the parties.
2. Whether Ruiz’s fraud-by-nondisclosure claim “relat[ed] to” the funeral and interment agreements and therefore fell within the scope of the arbitration clauses.
3. Whether Ruiz’s fraud defense barred arbitration when the alleged fraud concerned funeral and burial services rather than the arbitration provisions themselves.
4. Whether unconscionability provided a basis to deny arbitration, and whether the appellate record permitted resolution of that defense.

## Decision

- The court of appeals reversed the order denying SCI’s motion to compel arbitration and remanded.
- SCI met its burden to show valid arbitration agreements by producing the signed Interment and Funeral Agreements with facially valid arbitration clauses.
- Ruiz’s fraud-by-nondisclosure claim fell within the clauses’ broad “relating to” scope because the alleged nondisclosures and misconduct concerned services and conditions tied to performance under the agreements.
- Ruiz’s fraud defense did not defeat arbitration because the alleged fraud was not directed at the making or validity of the arbitration provisions themselves.
- The court remanded for the trial court to address Ruiz’s unconscionability defense because that issue had not been decided on the merits and the record was not developed enough for appellate resolution.

## Legal Principles

- A movant seeking to compel arbitration must show (1) a valid arbitration agreement and (2) that the claims fall within its scope; the opponent must then establish a valid defense to enforcement.
- Broad arbitration language covering claims “relating to” an agreement is construed expansively; doubts about scope are resolved in favor of arbitration.
- Fraud aimed at the contract generally (such as alleged nondisclosure in performance) does not prevent arbitration; only fraud specifically targeting the arbitration clause is for the court to decide as a bar to arbitration.
- Unconscionability is a potential contract defense to arbitration, but it must be addressed on an adequate record and, when not decided below, may require remand for fact development and an initial ruling.

## Conclusion

The court required arbitration because the signed agreements contained broad arbitration clauses covering disputes tied to funeral and burial services, and Ruiz’s fraud allegations did not specifically challenge the arbitration provisions; the case was remanded for the trial court to consider unconscionability.


Serv. Corp. Int'l v. Ruiz, No. 13-16-00699-CV, 2018 WL 549196 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Jan. 25, 2018, pet. denied)