Angels Senior Living at Connerton Court, LLC v. Gundry
210 So. 3d 257
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Mrs. Gundry was admitted to an assisted‑living facility (Connerton) in April 2014; she died in May 2015 and her Estate sued for wrongful death.
- Admission paperwork, including an arbitration agreement, was signed by her sons (with power of attorney); signing was not required for admission.
- The arbitration agreement incorporated AHLA rules, contained a delegation clause (arbitrator decides arbitrability), and limited discovery to documents and depositions of parties, treating physicians, and experts.
- Connerton moved to compel arbitration; the Estate argued the agreement was void as against Florida public policy because of the AHLA rules and the discovery limitation.
- The trial court denied the motion, finding the discovery limitation violated public policy; Connerton appealed.
- On appeal the court reversed, holding the discovery limits (with AHLA rules allowing supplemental discovery) did not render the agreement void and ordering the trial court to compel arbitration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether delegation clause precluded court from deciding arbitrability | Estate: delegation clause challenge was not outcome-determinative; court should decide validity | Connerton: delegation clause delegates arbitrability to arbitrator (Rent‑A‑Center) | Court: Connerton waived timely challenge by not raising it initially; trial court did not err in refusing reconsideration |
| Whether arbitration agreement is void as against public policy for limiting discovery | Estate: discovery cap and AHLA rule incorporation prevent vindication of statutory/common‑law rights | Connerton: discovery limits plus AHLA rules still permit meaningful discovery; AHLA rules permit added discovery where necessary | Court: discovery limits did not violate public policy; AHLA rules (and Connerton’s concessions) allow meaningful discovery; agreement enforceable |
| Whether AHLA rules incorporation alone voids agreement | Estate: AHLA rules historically limited remedies and conflicted with Shotts reasoning | Connerton: current AHLA rules and the contract preserve damages and permit discovery | Court: modern AHLA rules no longer restrict statutory remedies and applicable rules permit fair resolution; incorporation not fatal |
| Whether offensive clauses must be severed if problematic | Estate: clause undermines core rights, so severance inadequate | Connerton: alternatively sever offending provisions | Court: because agreement not void, no need to address severance |
Key Cases Cited
- Rent‑A‑Center, W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 (delegation clauses can commit arbitrability to the arbitrator)
- Parnell v. CashCall, Inc., 804 F.3d 1142 (11th Cir.) (when delegation clause is challenged, courts review only that issue; absent timely challenge, treat clause as valid)
- Shotts v. OP Winter Haven, Inc., 86 So. 3d 456 (Fla. 2011) (Arbitration clauses that eliminate statutory remedies violate Florida public policy)
- Seifert v. U.S. Home Corp., 750 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1999) (court determines existence of a valid written arbitration agreement)