The Illinois Appellate Court has upheld a lower court’s decision, rejecting an attempt by a property owner to enforce an arbitration agreement against a resident of its assisted living facility. The case, filed by Joan Hwang in the Circuit Court of Cook County on August 4, 2023, against Pathway LaGrange Property Owner, LLC (doing business as Aspired Living of LaGrange), revolves around an incident where Hwang was injured due to alleged negligence at the facility. The court’s decision highlights significant concerns over the fairness and enforceability of arbitration agreements in consumer contracts.
Joan Hwang filed her complaint after sustaining injuries from being struck by a door opened by an unnamed employee at Aspired Living on February 2, 2023. She accused the defendants of violating the Nursing Home Care Act, negligence, and premises liability. In response, Aspired moved to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration based on an agreement signed by Hwang upon her admission to the facility in July 2022. This agreement included clauses that mandated arbitration for disputes while exempting certain claims typically brought by businesses against consumers.
Hwang argued that the arbitration agreement was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. She contended that it was buried within a lengthy contract she signed without legal counsel at age 89 and just before her scheduled admission. Furthermore, she highlighted how the terms disproportionately favored Aspired by limiting recoverable damages and attorney fees while maintaining confidentiality over proceedings—a setup she claimed unfairly disadvantaged her.
The court sided with Hwang, agreeing that the agreement lacked necessary consideration since it offered no benefit to her nor detriment to Aspired. It also found multiple aspects of substantive unconscionability: one-sided obligations favoring Aspired, confidentiality clauses preventing precedent sharing while benefiting repeat players like Aspired, capped damages limiting liability exposure primarily for Aspired’s benefit, and punitive damage prohibitions potentially shielding Aspired from accountability for egregious conduct.
In light of these findings, the court refused to sever offending provisions from the arbitration agreement as doing so would effectively require drafting a new contract—an action beyond judicial purview aimed at ensuring precise contractual draftsmanship.
This article was first published in Cook County Record.
