here - FindLaw

In 24R, Inc., supra, 324 S.W.3d 564, the Texas Supreme Court summarized its
holding in Halliburton, saying: ―[T]his Court held that because the [arbitration] policy
contained a ‗savings clause‘ — including a ten-day notice provision and a provision that
any amendments would only apply prospectively — [which] prevented the employer
from avoiding its promise [to arbitrate], the arbitration agreement was not illusory‖ (24R,
Inc., at p. 567, italics added).
And in Odyssey Healthcare, supra, 310 S.W.3d 419, the Texas Supreme Court
held that an arbitration agreement was not illusory because (1) the modification clause
required 14 days‘ notice of an amendment, modification, or termination, and (2) the
arbitration agreement stated that ―‗no amendment or termination will alter the arbitration
provisions . . . in connection with[] an Injury occurring prior to the date of such
amendment or termination‘‖ (id. at p. 424).
In In re Golden Peanut Co., LLC (Tex.Ct.App. 2008) 269 S.W.3d 302, writ
conditionally granted on another point (Tex. 2009) 298 S.W.3d 629, the Texas Court of
Appeals upheld an arbitration agreement because it contained a savings clause in addition
to a notice provision. There, the agreement stated: ―Company shall have the right to
prospectively terminate this Agreement. Termination is not effective for Covered Claims
which accrued or occurred prior to the date of the termination. Termination is also not
effective until ten (10) days after reasonable notice is given to Claimant.‖ (Id. at p. 308,
italics added.) In concluding the agreement was enforceable, the court of appeals stated:
―[The employer‘s] right to terminate the arbitration agreement operated prospectively
only. It could not terminate the agreement for any accrued claim and could not terminate
an employee‘s rights until providing at least ten days notice.‖ (Id. at p. 309, italics added;
see In re H.E. Butt Grocery Co. (Tex.Ct.App. 2000) 17 S.W.3d 360, 370 (Butt Grocery
Co.) [employer‘s injury compensation plan not illusory because it stated ―‗no amendment
or termination of the Plan will affect any claim for expenses incurred prior to the date the
amendment or termination is adopted‘‖ (italics added)], overruled on another point in
Halliburton, supra, 80 S.W.3d at p. 571, fn. 3.)
30