Ex parte Dyess
In Ex parte Dyess, 709 So. 2d 447 (Ala. 1997), four Justices, in a plurality decision, held that as a general rule a person cannot merely pick and choose the provisions in a contract that he wants to apply.
In that case, Dyess sought to recover under the uninsured motorist provisions of an insurance contract and at the same time sought to avoid the arbitration provision contained in the contract.
The FAA was found to apply in that case because the contract involved interstate commerce.
The opinion in Dyess noted that Dyess was attempting to arbitrarily pick and choose between the provisions in the contract that were advantageous to him and the one provision he thought was not--the arbitration provision.