Burch

In this case, plaintiff and respondent, Cynthia L. Burch, filed a complaint for damages arising out of alleged construction defects. After she filed that complaint, defendants and appellants 1 moved to compel arbitration of her claims and now seek reversal of the trial court’s order denying that motion. 2 The trial court concluded that the arbitration clause in the agreement between Burch and defendants was susceptible to conflicting interpretations with respect to its scope. The court therefore solicited, received and considered extrinsic evidence with respect to the intent of the *734 parties on this issue, and even took the unusual step of receiving oral testimony at a special hearing. After considering such evidence and weighing the credibility of the several witnesses who had provided written and oral testimony, the trial court held that no agreement had been reached between the parties to arbitrate the issues and claims raised by Burch in her complaint.

In our view, the trial court correctly concluded that the arbitration clause was reasonably susceptible to conflicting interpretations and acted within its discretion in considering extrinsic evidence of the…