Matthew Koziol worked for Igloo Products Corp. and signed an arbitration agreement on February 9, 2012 as part of Igloo's ERISA plan for work-related injuries. After a workplace injury, Koziol demanded arbitration with Dispute Solutions, Inc. (DSI), where the arbitrator granted Igloo summary judgment, a DSI appellate panel reversed on procedural grounds, and DSI recused itself. Koziol then demanded arbitration before the American Arbitration Association (AAA), whose arbitrator also granted Igloo summary judgment; Koziol appealed within the AAA, a dispute arose over who must pay the AAA appellate costs, and the AAA administratively closed the appeal.¹ Petitioners say Koziol's state-court suit tries to relitigate a claim already resolved in arbitration; Koziol says petitioners caused the arbitration to collapse by refusing to pay required AAA fees.²

Koziol sued in Dallas County in October 2021, challenging the arbitration agreement and asserting negligence and gross negligence. Igloo, its lawyer Gary D. Sarles and his firm Sarles & Ouimet, PLLC applied to compel arbitration and to stay the suit. The County Court at Law No. 1 (Judge D'Metria Benson) held hearings, asked the parties for a status report on the arbitration, and on September 14, 2023 issued a notice setting the case for a jury trial on February 5, 2024, without signing an order on the applications.¹ The Fifth Court of Appeals (Lewis, J., joined by Goldstein and Lee, JJ.) dismissed the interlocutory appeal for want of jurisdiction, concluding there had been no express or implied denial, and denied en banc reconsideration on September 24, 2025. Igloo Products Corp. v. Koziol, No. 05-23-01092-CV, 2025 WL 1927564 (Tex. App.⁠—Dallas July 11, 2025, pet. filed).² Petitioners petitioned for review on November 20, 2025 and Koziol responded March 11, 2026. The Court requested briefs on the merits on June 12, 2026; petitioners filed on August 3, 2026 and Koziol's brief is due in the fall of 2026 after extensions.

Petition for review from the Fifth Court of Appeals, which dismissed for want of jurisdiction an interlocutory appeal from a trial court's alleged implicit denial of applications to compel arbitration. The Court requested merits briefing; the petitioners' brief is on file and the respondent's brief is not yet filed. The Court has not yet granted the petition.

1. Whether the trial court implicitly denied petitioners' applications for arbitration, conferring the right to an interlocutory appeal, when it refused to send the parties to the ongoing AAA arbitration, conducted hearings on discovery motions, and issued a trial-setting notice setting a jury trial and ordering the parties to appear or face dismissal or default. 2. Whether the underlying action should be compelled to arbitration because a valid agreement exists, the parties delegated all merits and arbitrability issues to the arbitrator, and no legitimate challenge authorizes the court to decide them.¹ Koziol restates the issues as whether a routine trial-setting order is an implied denial of pending applications where the court kept holding hearings on arbitration, and whether petitioners, who he says caused the arbitration to collapse by refusing to pay AAA fees, can manufacture interlocutory jurisdiction when mandamus was an adequate remedy for any trial court inaction.²

Petitioners (Igloo Products Corp., Sarles & Ouimet, PLLC and Gary D. Sarles): This Court recently reaffirmed the difference between an implicit denial, which triggers an interlocutory appeal, and a deferred ruling, which does not, and before the opinion below Texas courts of appeals recognized that line in arbitration cases. Here the court refused to send the parties to the pending AAA proceeding, heard discovery motions and set the case for trial, which is functionally a denial, and a clear rule protects parties' arbitration rights and gives trial courts a workable standard. On the merits, a valid agreement exists, the parties clearly and unmistakably delegated all arbitrability questions to the arbitrator, Koziol's claims fall within the agreement's scope, and because the AAA appeal remains pending under the agreement the case should return to the AAA to complete the arbitration.¹

Respondent (Matthew Koziol): The court of appeals correctly held a trial setting is not an implied denial of arbitration: the trial court continued to hold hearings on the arbitration question, asked about the AAA's decision on case status, and the parties kept litigating the arbitration issue. Petitioners' authorities are distinguishable, a trial setting is routine case management that is not a reviewable decision by any vehicle, the case lacks the jurisprudential importance needed for review, and the only "sidestepping" was petitioners', who he says refused to pay the AAA fees that caused the arbitration to collapse.² His merits brief is not yet on file.

Petitioners argue the opinion departs from established precedent recognizing interlocutory jurisdiction when a trial court effectively denies arbitration by setting a case for trial, causing confusion among the courts of appeals about when review is available, strips parties of the interlocutory appeal the Legislature promised, and forces them to go to trial before they can appeal a refusal to rule on arbitration.¹ Koziol responds that the court applied a strict construction of the interlocutory-appeal statutes to the specific facts, identifies no conflict among courts of appeals or with this Court's precedent, and presents a fact-bound dispute.²

None