Bigge Crane & Rigging Co.; Claus Frederiksen; Dp Engineering, Ltd.; John Scroggins; and Vei General — Hart, J…

Summary

The concurrence agrees that the circuit court properly denied Bigge’s motion to compel arbitration, but disagrees with the majority’s reasoning. It reasons that the agreement’s provisions exclude Entergy’s negligence claims for property and economic losses from the arbitration clause and do not clearly and unmistakably delegate arbitrability to the arbitrator. Because this is a concurrence, it states reasoning supporting the disposition rather than a separate holding.