Mendez v. Hampton Court Nursing Center, LLC
140 So. 3d 671
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Father admitted to nursing facility in March 2009; facility doctor found him incapacitated to give informed consent at admission.
- Son signed the facility's admission/care agreement on the line labeled "resident’s representative." The agreement included a broad arbitration clause.
- Agreement stated a resident’s representative is "fully bound" to the terms to the extent of the resident’s assets.
- Father lived at the facility for ~4 years; in July 2011 an eye infection led to removal of an eye; son later received power of attorney.
- In December 2012 son sued on behalf of father for negligent care; facility moved to compel arbitration under the agreement; trial court granted motion.
- Son appealed, arguing the father (a nonsignatory) was not bound by the arbitration clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a nonsignatory resident is bound by arbitration clause in a care agreement signed by a family member | Son: Father not bound because he did not sign agreement; son lacked authority when he signed | Facility: Father was intended third-party beneficiary of the agreement and thus bound by arbitration clause | Court: Father was an intended third-party beneficiary and bound to arbitrate |
| Whether signature label or authority of signatory matters to third-party beneficiary analysis | Son: Signature as "resident’s representative" or lack of documented authority means no binding arbitration | Facility: Label/authority irrelevant where resident accepted benefits and received care under contract | Court: Label/authority irrelevant; performance and benefit to resident establish third-party beneficiary status |
| Whether competing district court decisions preclude enforcing arbitration here | Son: Other DCA decisions refused to bind nonsignatory residents | Facility: Those cases are distinguishable and inconsistent with arbitration/third-party beneficiary law | Court: Disagreed with those decisions; applied established law favoring arbitration and third-party beneficiary binding |
| Public policy concerns about admissions under stressful conditions | Son: Procedural fairness and consent concerns undermine enforcement | Facility: Parties may contractually waive jury; arbitration favored | Court: Acknowledged concerns but left remedy to Legislature; enforcement stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Prudential Sec., Inc. v. Katz, 807 So.2d 173 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (arbitration is favored and doubts resolved for arbitration)
- Raymond James Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Saldukas, 896 So.2d 707 (Fla. 2005) (Florida courts generally favor arbitration clauses)
- Orion Ins. Co. v. Magnetic Imaging Sys. I, 696 So.2d 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (arbitration clauses bind third-party beneficiaries)
- Germann v. Age Inst. of Fla., Inc., 912 So.2d 590 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (nonsignatory may be bound if an intended third-party beneficiary)
- Alterra Healthcare Corp. v. Estate of Linton ex rel. Graham, 953 So.2d 574 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (similar holding: resident bound as intended third-party beneficiary)
- Lepisto v. Senior Lifestyle Newport Ltd. P’ship, 78 So.3d 89 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (contrasting decision: resident not bound when contract signed by spouse)
- Integrated Health Servs. of Green Briar, Inc. v. Lopez-Silvero, 827 So.2d 338 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (contract binding where parties performed under it)