This article discusses the circumstances obligating parties in business litigation to arbitrate and when they can avoid arbitration. “Arbitration is a preferred method of dispute resolution.” Obolensky v. Chatsworth as Wellington Green, 240 So. 3d 6 (quoting BallenIsles Country Club, Inc. v. Dexter Realty, 24 So. 3d 649, 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)). Precedent from the Supreme Court of Florida, in Jackson v. Shakespeare Found., Inc., 108 So. 3d 587 (Fla. 2013), explained that “[c]ourts generally favor [arbitration] provisions, and [ ] try to resolve ambiguity… in favor of arbitration.” But this favorability does not always force unwilling participants to arbitrate. Courts can, and do, refuse to mandate arbitration despite the existence of an contractual provision seemingly requiring arbitration. For example, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal, in Apartment Inv. & Mgmt. Co. v. Flamingo/S. Beach 1 Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 84 So. 3d 1090 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012), upheld the trial court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration because the parties had amended their contract to exclude certain legal issues from arbitration. Peter Mavrick is a Fort Lauderdale business litigation attorney, and represents clients in business litigation in Miami, Boca Raton, and Palm Beach. The Mavrick Law Firm represents businesses and their owners in breach of contract litigation and related claims of fraud, non-compete agreement litigation, trade secret litigation, trademark infringement litigation, employment law, and other legal disputes in federal and state courts and in arbitration.
Florida courts must consider three elements when faced with a motion to compel arbitration: “(1) whether a valid written agreement to arbitrate exists; (2) whether an arbitrable issue exists; and (3) whether the right to arbitration was waived.” Seifert v. U.S. Home Corp., 750 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1999). The first two steps rest on contract interpretation, thereby requiring courts to construe the contracting parties’ intent.
The first factor requires a careful framing of the issue for consideration because it will dictate the presiding tribunal. Challenges to contract validity are resolved by arbitrators, while challenges to contract formation or the existence of a contract are resolved by courts. HHH Motors, LLP v. Holt, 152 So. 3d 745, 747 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (citing Granite Rock Co. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 561 U.S. 287 (2010)). Sometimes, it is easy to determine when a party challenges validity rather than contract formation. See, e.g., Airbnb, Inc. v. Doe, 336 So. 3d 698 (Fla. 2022) (explaining that “because Airbnb’s Terms of Service incorporate by reference the AAA Rules that expressly delegate arbitrability determinations to an arbitrator, the agreement clearly and unmistakably evidences the parties’ intent to empower an arbitrator, rather than a court, to resolve questions of arbitrability.”). Other times it is less obvious. See, e.g., Duval Motors Co. v. Rogers, 73 So. 3d 261 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (the court considered the issue of arbitrability because it had to determine whether a contract containing an arbitration provision was superseded by another contract entered contemporaneously that contained a merger clause negating all prior writings).
In the Jackson v. Shakespeare Found., Inc., the Supreme Court of Florida explained that whether an arbitrable issue exists requires examination of the breadth of the arbitration covenant. Contractual provisions can be narrow and limited in scope to subject maters “arising out of” the contract at issue. Arbitration provisions also can be “broad,” requiring arbitration for claims or controversies “arising out of or relating to” the subject contract. Florida courts construe the contractual wording “relating to” as expanding arbitrability to all claims having a “significant relationship” to the contract, regardless of whether the claim is premised on contact liability or tort liability. However, inclusion of the wording “relating to” does not automatically trigger arbitration for any claim because the claim must have a nexus to the contract.
Peter Mavrick is a Fort Lauderdale business litigation lawyer, and represents clients in Miami, Boca Raton, and Palm Beach. This article does not serve as a substitute for legal advice tailored to a particular situation.