BKD Twenty-One Management Co. v. Delsordo
127 So. 3d 527
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Plaintiff Del-sordo signed a January 2010 lease for Newport Place; an arbitration addendum required arbitration for disputes over $15,000 arising out of or related to the Agreement, the Establishment, or services/care.
- The term Establishment is not defined in the addendum.
- Plaintiff, a resident, tripped on a catwalk connecting his building to the dining room, fracturing his shoulder.
- Plaintiff sued defendants for premises negligence, alleging maintenance failures and failure to warn of a known danger.
- Defendants moved to compel arbitration; trial court denied, ruling plaintiff’s claim did not arise from the contract.
- Court review is de novo for arbitration clause construction; Seifert governs broad arbitration clauses and scope.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arbitration clause covers the plaintiff's negligence claim | Del-sordo argues the claim is not within the contract's scope | Taylor asserts the clause covers negligence arising from the Establishment | Yes; negligence claims arising from Establishment are within arbitration |
Key Cases Cited
- Seifert v. U.S. Home Corp., 750 So.2d 633 (Fla.1999) (test for arbitrability hinges on significant relationship to contract)
- Laizure v. Avante at Leesburg, Inc., 44 So.3d 1254 (Fla.5th DCA 2010) (broad arbitration may cover tort claims if within contract scope)
- Mercedes Homes, Inc. v. Colon, 966 So.2d 10 (Fla.5th DCA 2007) (arbitration language can encompass broader tort claims related to property)
- B DO Seidman, LLP v. Bee, 970 So.2d 869 (Fla.4th DCA 2007) (appellate review of arbitration clause conclusions is de novo)
- Citigroup, Inc. v. Amodio, 894 So.2d 296 (Fla.4th DCA 2005) (doubts about scope resolved in favor of arbitration if agreement covers it)