This Arkansas appellate decision draws an important distinction between immunity from suit and immunity from liability, a difference that determines whether a denial of immunity can be immediately appealed. The ruling is essential reading for practitioners who handle statutory immunity defenses and need to understand the limits of interlocutory appellate jurisdiction.

Appellate Court Dismisses Arbitration Organization's Interlocutory

Appeal of Immunity Denial, Holding That Statutory Immunity from Civil

Damages Is Immunity from Liability---Not Immunity from Suit---and

Therefore Not Immediately Appealable

Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas (Appeal from the Bradley County Circuit

Court, No. 06CV-22-11, Hon. Robert Bynum Gibson III, Judge)

Date: March 19, 2025 --- 2025 Ark. App. 171, 2025 WL 852768

Introduction

The American Health Law Association (AHLA), an arbitration organization,

was sued by the Estate of Fred Cunningham. The underlying dispute

involved a negligence claim brought by the Estate against AHLA. The

specific facts of the underlying negligence claim are not detailed in

the appellate opinion, as the court addressed only the procedural

question of appealability. This case presents important questions about the central controversy was whether the circuit court's.

The Procedural Background

The Estate filed a complaint and amended complaint against AHLA. AHLA

filed a motion to dismiss claiming immunity, which the Bradley County

Circuit Court denied on April 14, 2023. No appeal was taken from that

order. On June 20, 2023, AHLA moved for summary judgment arguing the

Estate could not establish a negligence claim because AHLA is immune

from damages under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-108-241(a). The circuit court

denied summary judgment on September 15, 2023. AHLA appealed the denial.

The Estate moved to dismiss the appeal for want of a final order. The question before the appellate court was whether this order could be reviewed at that stage of the litigation.

The Legal Issue at Stake

The central controversy was whether the circuit court's order denying

AHLA's summary judgment motion based on statutory immunity constituted a

final, appealable order. This required the court to determine whether

Ark. Code Ann. § 16-108-241(a) confers immunity from suit (which would

be immediately appealable) or merely immunity from liability (which

would not).

Arguments Presented to the Court

AHLA (Appellant): Argued it was immune from civil damages under the

arbitration organization immunity statute and that the denial of its

summary judgment motion on immunity grounds was immediately appealable.

Estate of Cunningham (Appellee): Moved to dismiss the appeal,

arguing that the denial of summary judgment based on immunity from

liability (as opposed to sovereign immunity or immunity from suit) is

not a final, appealable order.

The Court's Holding

Motion to dismiss granted; appeal dismissed without prejudice. The

appellate court held it lacked jurisdiction because the circuit court's

order was not a final, appealable order.

Detailed Analysis and Reasoning

The court relied on Baptist Health v. Sourinphoumy, 2023 Ark. 15, which

distinguished between immunity from suit and immunity from liability.

Immunity from suit is the entitlement not to stand trial, while immunity

from liability is merely a defense. Interlocutory appeals are permitted

only for sovereign immunity or immunity of a government official because

the right to immunity from suit is effectively lost if the case goes to

trial. Here, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-108-241(a) provides that an arbitration

organization "is immune from civil damages"---which is immunity from

liability, not immunity from suit. Because the immunity at issue is one

of liability, the general rule that an appeal may not be taken from an

order denying a motion to dismiss applied.

This reasoning demonstrates the court's careful application of precedent to distinguish between different legal doctrines. The analysis provides clarity on how courts should interpret similar statutes and apply appellate procedure rules.

Practical Significance for Legal Practitioners

This decision is important for practitioners because it clarifies the court relied on baptist health. Understanding the court's reasoning helps attorneys avoid procedural pitfalls and develop effective litigation strategies.

Key practice points include:

• The importance of carefully analyzing the specific language and scope of statutory provisions
• How appellate jurisdiction depends on the type of legal protection or immunity being asserted
• The procedural consequences of mischaracterizing the nature of a defense

Practitioners should carefully consider how this holding applies to their own cases and adjust their litigation approaches accordingly.

This case summary is provided for educational and informational purposes only. It should not be construed as legal advice. Practitioners should consult with qualified legal counsel regarding their specific situations.

Need Legal Guidance on a Similar Issue?

Understanding how courts have ruled on cases like this one can be critical to your legal strategy. Contact Riefkohl Law for experienced counsel on trust law, estate planning, and litigation matters in Puerto Rico.

Schedule a Free Consultation →

Related resources: Puerto Rico Trust Law Guide | Case Analysis Blog | Legal Resources