Arbitration Clause Severability
The doctrine treating an arbitration clause as a separate, independently valid agreement from the surrounding contract, so a challenge to the contract as a whole does not by itself defeat the arbitration clause.
The doctrine traces to Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Manufacturing Co. (1967) and was extended in Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna (2006). If a challenge attacks the contract generally — for example, an argument that the entire contract was procured by fraud or is void for illegality — that argument goes to the arbitrator. Only a challenge specifically targeting the arbitration clause itself is decided by a court.
Severability interacts closely with delegation clauses and kompetenz-kompetenz — it is precisely why an arbitrator can rule on the validity of the surrounding contract even while the arbitration clause's own validity remains, in principle, a gateway question a court can still reach if a party attacks that clause specifically rather than the whole deal.
Juricratic treats severability as another structural gate: it determines whether a 'the whole deal was invalid' argument gets modeled inside the arbitration branch of the matter or diverts the case entirely to a separate court branch.
How it actually shows up
A party trying to avoid arbitration by attacking the underlying contract's validity generally will still be sent to arbitration under severability doctrine, unless it specifically challenges the arbitration clause itself as invalid.
- What is the severability doctrine in arbitration?
- It treats the arbitration clause as a separate agreement from the rest of the contract, so an attack on the contract generally does not automatically invalidate the arbitration clause.
- Can a party avoid arbitration by claiming the whole contract is void?
- Generally no — under severability doctrine, that argument itself goes to the arbitrator unless the party specifically challenges the validity of the arbitration clause itself.
- What case established the severability doctrine?
- Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Manufacturing Co. established the doctrine, and Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna later reaffirmed and extended it.
This page is an educational explainer, not legal advice, and creates no attorney–client relationship. Juricratic is a simulation engine: every probability-like figure is a dial you set, not a calibrated prediction. Verify every rule, deadline, and figure against the authorities and orders that govern your matter.
Turn the concept into a modeled matter.
Juricratic makes every one of these ideas a live dial: model your case as a solvable game, then watch the optimal line and the settlement window move as the assumptions do.
Request access →