In General Beer v. Johnson (2017AP1288), the Court of Appeals District IV held that procedural issues related to statute-mandated arbitration should be solved in arbitration rather than in court.

In this case, a brewer transferred its distribution rights in a certain territory from Johnson Distributing, Inc. to General Beer-Northeast, Inc. The transfer statutorily (Wis. Stat. § 125.33(10)) required General Beer to compensate Johnson for the fair market value of the distribution rights. Since General Beer and Johnson could not agree on a fair market value, Wis. Stat. § 125.33(10)(d) required arbitration within 90 days. However, Johnson made the demand for arbitration after the 90 day period. Johnson argued arbitration could still proceed because the parties had mutually agreed to extend the 90 day period.

Specifically, the issue in this case was whether the timeliness of Johnson’s claim should be decided in court or by arbitration. The appeals court maintained, based on Wisconsin Supreme Court precedent, that issues of procedural arbitrability (including the timeliness of demand at issue here) should be decided in arbitration.