award becomes final once the arbitrator releases his findings. This reasoning is proper given the parties’ reliance on AAA procedural rules and the absence of language in the policy indicating that the arbitration clause was nonbinding. Duke v. Crop Growers Ins., Inc., 70 F.Supp.2d 711, 716 n. 3 (S.D.Tex.1999) (emphasis added); see also McKee v. Home Buyers Warranty Corp. II, 45 F.3d 981, 983 (5th Cir.1995) (“Numerous courts have held that arbitration is binding where the rules under which the arbitration is conducted call for binding arbitration.... [A]ll parties are on notice that resort to AAA arbitration will be deemed both binding end subject to entry of judgment unless the parties expressly agree otherwise.”); Rainwater v. Nat’l Home Ins. Co., 944 F.2d 190 (4th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). For the aforementioned reasons, the
holding that an arbitration in accordance with aaa rules is a binding arbitration holding that failure to attach the aaa arbitration rules weighed in favor of a finding of procedural unconscionability holding that arbitration award is binding on the parties holding that an arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable because it did not attach the aaa rules holding that an aaa arbitration was a private proceeding and therefore that a decision by the arbitrator pursuant to the federal arbitration act did not constitute state action