Gessa v. Manor Care of Florida, Inc.
86 So. 3d 484
| Fla. | 2011Background
- Gessa, an elderly nursing home resident, was admitted to Manor Care of Florida, Inc. with an arbitration agreement signed by her attorney-in-fact.
- Gessa sued Manor Care for negligence, resident rights violations, and fiduciary duties; Manor Care moved to compel arbitration.
- Gessa challenged the arbitration agreement as unconscionable and contrary to public policy due to $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages and punitive-damages waiver.
- Trial court held offensive clauses could be severed and did not decide public policy; arbitrator would address that issue; trial and appellate courts accepted severability.
- The Second District affirmed severability and left public policy for the arbitrator; this Court granted discretionary review to resolve: severability, who decides public-policy issues, and public-policy validity of the liability limits.
- The Court ultimately held that severability is inappropriate, that the court—not the arbitrator—must decide public-policy issues, and that the liability limits violate public policy; Rent-A-Center Jackson was inapplicable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Severability of liability limitations | Gessa contends limits violate policy and are not severable. | Manor Care contends limits are severable under Local No. 234. | Not severable; limits deemed core to the agreement. |
| Who decides public-policy compliance | Court should decide public-policy validity of the arbitration terms. | Arbitrator should decide if delegation exists or if terms violate policy. | Court must decide; arbitrator not empowered to determine public-policy validity here. |
| Public-policy violation by liability limits | Limits undermine remedial statutes protecting residents. | Public policy not violated; limitations are acceptable contract terms. | Limits violate public policy and are unenforceable. |
| Effect of Rent-A-Center Jackson | Jackson governs delegation and control when challenging unconscionability. | Jackson supports arbitration when delegation exists; not applicable here. | Jackson inapplicable; the case does not involve a delegation provision. |
Key Cases Cited
- Local No. 234 of United Ass’n of Journeymen & Apprentices v. Henley & Beckwith, Inc., 66 So.2d 818 (Fla.1953) (severability standard for contracts)
- Shotts v. OP Winter Haven, Inc., 86 So.3d 456 (Fla.2011) (limits of remedies not severable; public policy and Florida remedial statutes)
- Romano v. Manor Care, Inc., 861 So.2d 59 (Fla.4th DCA 2003) (remedial statutes require effective remedies in arbitration)
- Seifert v. U.S. Home Corp., 750 So.2d 633 (Fla.1999) (validity of arbitration agreement hinges on public policy)
- Global Travel Marketing, Inc. v. Shea, 908 So.2d 392 (Fla.2005) (public policy analysis in arbitration)
- Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440 (U.S.2006) (severability doctrine under FAA; arbitration provisions severable from contract)
- PacifiCare Health Sys., Inc. v. Book, 538 U.S. 403 (U.S.2003) (arbitration enforceability and severability considerations)
- Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 130 S. Ct. 2772 (2010) (delegation clause control; Jackson not applicable where no delegation)