By
Ashwani Patel
In August 2018, fourteen-year-old, Olivia Checchio, went to Sky Zone, a trampoline park, along with four friends and her friend’s mom, Gina Valenti.[1] Upon arrival at Sky Zone, Valenti was the mother of one of Checchio’s friends, and Valenti signed a “participant agreement, release and assumption of risk” document.[2] Under this agreement, it included “an arbitration provision under which the signing adult on behalf of the minor child waived a jury trial and agreed to arbitrate any dispute or claim arising out of the child’s use of the Sky Zone premises.”[3] The agreement also stated that, by signing it, a person: “represent[s], warrant[s] and certif[ies] that [they are] the parent, legal guardian, or power-of-attorney of the above listed [c]hild(ren) and have the authority to execute this [a]greement on his/her or their behalf and to act on his/her or their behalf.”[4] Valenti signed this agreement on Checchio’s behalf, even though Checchio was not her daughter.[5] Then, while at SkyZone, Checchio was injured.[6]
After Checchio was injured, her mother, Kump-Checchio, filed suit against Sky Zone.[7] Pursuant to the agreement signed by Valentini, Sky Zone moved for arbitration. However, the trial court denied the motion.[8] The trial court stated that Checchio’s parents never agreed to arbitrate since Valenti was the one who signed the agreement.[9] However, although Kump-Checchio did not sign the agreement on the day that her daughter was injured, she had signed the agreement several times before during their visits to Sky Zone in 2016.[10] Thus, on appeal, Sky Zone argued that Kump-Checchio’s previous execution of five Sky Zone agreements demonstrated “a pattern of conduct sufficient to find Valenti had actual and apparent authority to sign the 2018 agreement when Valenti brought Olivia to the park.”[11]
The New Jersey Superior Court disagreed with Sky Zone and reasoned that there was no evidence that Valenti had actual and apparent authority to execute the agreement on behalf of Checchio.[12] The court explained that apparent authority “focuses on a third party’s reasonable expectations in their interactions with the principal’s agent.”[13] As such, the court was not persuaded by Sky Zones argument that the 2016 agreements vested Valenti with the authority to enter into the 2018 agreement or any future agreement.[14] In fact, the 2016 agreements had a limitation where the parties were required to arbitrate any claims within a year of each agreement.[15]
Furthermore, the Checchios’ attorney argued that Sky Zone was merely trying to force arbitration.[16] The attorney reasoned that since Sky Zone did not have actual authority, they tried to create apparent authority, but Valenti “lack[ed] of any authority for her to waive this minor’s constitutional right to a jury trial.”[17] Right before this suit, two weeks earlier, in Gayles v. Sky Zone Trampoline Park, Sky Zone tried using the same argument and lost.[18]
[1]. See Joyce Hanson, Sky Zone Can’t Force Arbitration Without Mom’s Signature, Law 360 (Feb. 15, 2022), https://plus.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1530671&crid=d81342ea-fc0f-4924-93d7-9f2cf91b7660&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Flegalnews%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A64SX-JMY1-JF75-M2T3-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=122080&pdworkfolderlocatorid=NOT_SAVED_IN_WORKFOLDER&prid=1282e6fa-16b8-4018-a39f-0890bcab4d4a&ecomp=ff4k&earg=sr99.
[2]. Id.
[3]. Checchio v. Evermore Fitness, LLC, No. A-3461-20, 2022 N.J. Super. LEXIS 17, at *1 (Super. Ct. App. Div. Feb. 15, 2022).
[4]. Id. at *2.
[5]. See id.
[6]. See id.
[7]. See Hanson, supra note 1.
[8]. See id.
[9]. See id.
[10]. Checchio, 2022 N.J. Super. LEXIS 17, at *4.
[11]. Id.
[12]. See id.
[13]. Id. at *5.
[14]. See id. at *7.
[15]. See id.
[16]. See Hanson, supra note 1.
[17]. Id.
[18]. Id.