A nursing home patient, Harry Lee Stewart, signed an agreement providing for arbitration of disputes arising out of treatment and care at the nursing home. Stewart subsequently died, allegedly as a result of the nursing home’s negligence. Through the personal representative, Debra Laizure, his survivors brought a cause of action in circuit court for deprivation of rights under the applicable nursing home statute and, alternatively, a wrongful death action. The issue in this case presented through the Fifth District’s opinion in Laizure v. Avante at Leesburg, Inc.,
DOES THE EXECUTION OF A NURSING HOME ARBITRATION AGREEMENT BY A PARTY WITH THE CAPACITY TO CONTRACT, BIND THE PATIENT’S ESTATE AND STATUTORY HEIRS IN A SUBSEQUENT WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION ARISING FROM AN ALLEGED TORT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF AN OTHERWISE VALID ARBITRATION AGREEMENT[?]
Id. at 1259. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
This case requires us to examine the nature of wrongful death actions under Florida law and is not about the quality of care provided by nursing homes or other related policy issues. The question presented is whether an arbitration provision in an otherwise valid contract binds the signing party’s estate and heirs in a subsequent wrongful death case. For the reasons more fully explained below, we hold that it does.
FACTS AND BACKGROUND
Harry Lee Stewart died several days after he was admitted to Avante at Lees-
The defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration predicated on an arbitration agreement that Stewart signed on May 15, the day after his admission to AVL. The arbitration agreement was presented to Stewart as part of a packet of admissions paperwork and was entitled “ADDENDUM TO ADMISSION AGREEMENT.” It provided in relevant part as follows:
The Facility and the Resident and/or Resident’s Authorized Representative (hereinafter referred to collectively as the “Parties”) understand and agree that any legal dispute, controversy, demand, or claim where the damages or other amount in controversy is/are alleged to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00), and that arises out of or relates to the Resident Admission Agreement or is in any way connected to the Resident’s stay at the Facility shall be resolved exclusively by binding Arbitration; and not by a lawsuit or resort to other court process. The parties understand that arbitration is a process in which a neutral third person or persons (“arbitrator(s)”) considers the facts and arguments presented by the parties and renders a binding decision.
This agreement to arbitrate shall include, but is not limited to, any claim based on ... breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud or misrepresentation, common law or statutory negligence, gross negligence, malpractice or a claim based on any departure from accepted standards of medical or nursing care (collectively “Disputes”), where the damages or other amount in controversy is/are alleged to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00). This shall expressly include, without limitation, claims based on Chapter 400, Florida-Statutes, which allege damages in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00).
This agreement shall be binding upon, and shall include any claims brought by or against the Parties’ representatives, agents, heirs, assigns, employees, managers, directors, shareholders, management companies, parent companies, subsidiary companies or related or affiliated business entities.
[[Image here]]
THE PARTIES UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT BY ENTERING THIS ARBITRATION AGREEMENT THEY ARE GIVING UP AND WAIVING THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO HAVE ANY CLAIM OR DISPUTE THAT FALLS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THIS AGREEMENT DECIDED IN A COURT OF LAW BEFORE A JUDGE AND JURY. IN THE EVENT A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION SHALL RULE THAT A DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES IS NOT SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION THEN RESIDENT AND FACILITY ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE TO WAIVE ALL RIGHTS TO A TRIAL BY JURY AND TO HAVE THEIR DISPUTE DECIDED ONLY BY A JUDGE OF A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION IN THE COUNTY ANDSTATE IN WHICH THE FACILITY IS LOCATED.
Finally, the Resident or his/her Authorized Representative understands that: (1) he/she has the right to seek legal counsel concerning this agreement; (2) he/she is not required to use the Facility for his/her healthcare needs and that there are numerous other health care providers in the State where Facility is located that are qualified to provide such care; and (8) this Arbitration Agreement may be rescinded by written notice to the Facility from the Resident or Authorized Representative within three (8) business days of signing the Agreement. If not rescinded within three (3) business days of signing, this Arbitration shall remain in effect for all care and services rendered at Facility subsequent to the date the agreement was signed, even if such care and services are rendered during a subsequent admission (i.e. following the Resident’s discharge from and readmission to the Facility).
Laizure opposed arbitration, contending that the arbitration agreement was procedurally and substantively unconscionable and that the wrongful death claims were not arbitrable. The trial court found that the arbitration agreement was valid, that the claims brought by Laizure were arbi-trable issues, and that the beneficiaries of the estate were intended third-party beneficiaries of the agreement.
On appeal, the Fifth District affirmed the trial court’s order. The Fifth District focused primarily on Laizure’s argument that the arbitration agreement did not, and could not, encompass a wrongful death claim because the claim did not belong to Stewart, but rather was an independent claim belonging to the estate and the statutory heirs. Laizure,
The Fifth District began its discussion by reviewing this Court’s decision in Seifert v. U.S. Home Corp.,
Turning to this case, the Fifth District contrasted the arbitration agreement at issue here with the agreement in Seifert, stating that the arbitration agreement signed by Stewart was “broad, encompassing ‘any claim based on ... common law or statutory negligence, gross negligence, malpractice or a claim based on any departure from accepted standards of medical or nursing care.’ ” Id. Because the wrongful death claim was based on alleged negligence, the Fifth District concluded that it fell “squarely within the language of the arbitration agreement.” Id.
The Fifth District next addressed Lai-zure’s argument that the very nature of a wrongful death cause of action places it outside the terms of the arbitration agreement. Id. The Fifth District disagreed, reasoning:
While we agree that a wrongful death action belongs to the survivors of the decedent, by statute, such an action is predicated on the “wrongful act, negligence, default or breach of contract or warranty” committed by the defendant which, as the result of the decedent’s death, transformed a personal injury claim into one for wrongful death. See § 768.19, Fla. Stat. (2009). Consequently, courts generally agree that wrongful death claims are derivative in nature, at least in the sense that they are dependent on a wrong committed against the decedent. Valiant Ins. Co. v. Webster, 567 So.2d 408 , 411 (Fla.1990).... The connection to the underlying tort also permits defenses that would have been available to a defendant had the decedent lived, to be equally available to a defendant in a wrongful death action. See generally Thomas D. Sawaya, Fla. Personal Injury Law & Practice with Wrongful Death Actions, §§ 22.l-.il (2008-2009 ed.).
Id. The Fifth District noted that the conclusion that a wrongful death claim is within the scope of an arbitration agreement was at least “inferentially supported by” a case in which the Fourth District enforced a nursing home arbitration agreement in a wrongful death action. Id. at 1258 (citing Consol. Res. Healthcare Fund I, Ltd. v. Fenelus,
After analyzing this issue, the Fifth District certified to this Court the question of whether a nursing home arbitration agreement signed by a nursing home resident, or his or her representative, binds the resident’s estate and statutory heirs to arbitration in a subsequent wrongful death action arising from an alleged tort within the scope of an otherwise valid arbitration agreement. Id.
ANALYSIS
In Florida, “there are three elements for courts to consider in ruling on a motion to compel arbitration of a given dispute: (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,
We begin our analysis by addressing Laizure’s argument that the wrongful death claims are not within the scope of the arbitration agreement. Then, we analyze the issue of whether a nursing home arbitration agreement signed by a nursing home resident, or his or her representative, can bind the resident’s estate and statutory heirs to arbitration. To analyze this issue, we first review Florida’s Wrongful Death Act. Next we discuss the Florida Nursing Home Residents’ Rights Act (NHRRA). Finally, we analyze the nature of wrongful death claims in Florida and answer the certified question in the affirmative.
I. The Scope of the Arbitration Agreement
There is no question that the wrongful death claims under chapter 400
Laizure nevertheless contends that the wrongful death claims are not arbitrable because a wrongful death claim is an independent cause of action belonging to the survivors under Florida’s Wrongful Death Act. We now turn to an examination of the Act.
II. Florida’s Wrongful Death Act
“A court’s purpose in construing a statute is to give effect to legislative intent, which is the polestar that guides the court in statutory construction.” Gomez v. Vill. of Pinecrest,
The Act provides for a cause of action that may be brought by a decedent’s personal representative when the decedent’s death is caused by the wrongful act, negligence, default, or breach of contract or warranty of any person:
When the death of a person is caused by the wrongful act, negligence, default, or breach of contract or warranty of any person, including those occurring on navigable waters, and the event would have entitled the person injured to maintain an action and recover damages if death had not ensued, the person or watercraft that would have been liable in damages if death had not ensued shall be liable for damages as specified in this act notwithstanding the death of the person injured, although death was caused under circumstances constituting a felony.
§ 768.19, Fla. Stat. (2008) (emphasis added). The next section further provides:
The action shall be brought by the decedent’s personal representative, who shall recover for the benefit of the decedent’s survivors and estate all damages, as specified in this act, caused by the injury resulting in death. When a personal injury to the decedent results in death, no action for the personal injury shall survive, and any such action pending at the time of death shall abate.... A defense that would bar or reduce a survivor’s recovery if she or he were the plaintiff may be asserted against thesurvivor, but shall not affect the recovery of any other survivor.
§ 768.20, Fla. Stat. (2008). The Act also provides for damages that may be recovered by the survivors, see § 768.21, Fla. Stat. (2008), and requires that “[t]he amounts awarded to each survivor and to the estate shall be stated separately in the verdict.” § 768.22, Fla. Stat. (2008).
Because this case also involves the Florida Nursing Home Residents’ Rights Act, we briefly discuss that statutory scheme next.
III. Florida Nursing Home Residents’ Rights Act
The purpose of the NHRRA is to provide for the “development, establishment, and enforcement of basic standards for: (1) the health, care, and treatment of persons in nursing homes and related health care facilities; and (2) the maintenance and operation of such institutions that will ensure safe, adequate, and appropriate care, treatment, and health of persons in such facilities.” § 400.011, Fla. Stat. (2008). The NHRRA sets forth the statutory rights of nursing home residents. § 400.022, Fla. Stat. (2008). The NHRRA includes a provision for civil enforcement that provides for a cause of action for negligence or a violation of the rights set forth in section 400.022. § 400.023, Fla. Stat. (2008). The action may be brought by the resident or his or her guardian, by a person or organization acting on behalf of a resident, or by the personal representative of the estate of a deceased resident regardless of the cause of death. Id. The NHRRA provides that the action may be brought in any court of competent jurisdiction and that the claimant may recover actual and punitive damages. Id.
If the action alleges that negligence or a violation of the resident’s rights caused the resident’s death, the claimant is “required to elect either survival damages pursuant to s. 46.021 or wrongful death damages pursuant to s. 768.21.” Id.
The ability of a claimant to elect between a survival action and a wrongful death action emanates from the NHRRA. When the NHRRA does not apply, the personal injury cause of action abates upon the death of the injured party under the Wrongful Death Act, and the wrongful death cause of action becomes the only avenue for recovery. See § 768.20, Fla. Stat. (2008) (“When a personal injury to the decedent results in death, no action for the personal injury shall survive....”).
IV. Answering the Certified Question
Although Florida’s Wrongful Death Act has “long [been] characterized ... as creating a new and distinct right of action from the right of action the decedent had prior to death,” Toombs v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc.,
The right of the survivors to recover is predicated in the Act on the decedent’s right to recover. In other words, recovery is precluded if the decedent could not have maintained an action and recovered damages if death had not ensued. Section 768.19, Florida Statutes (2008), provides for a cause of action “[w]hen the death of a person is caused by the wrongful act, negligence, default, or breach of contract or warranty of any person, ... and the event would have entitled the person injured to maintain an action and recover damages if death had not ensued.” (Emphasis added.) In Variety Children’s Hospital v. Perkins,
More recently, in Toombs, this Court barred recovery for a wrongful death claim predicated upon the dangerous instrumentality doctrine where the decedent had no right of action because she was a co-bailee of the vehicle.
Although we have long emphasized that an action for wrongful death is distinct from the decedent’s action for personal injuries had he or she survived because it involves different rights of recovery and damages, the language of the Act makes clear a cause of action for wrongful death that is predicated on the decedent’s entitlement to “maintain an action and recover damages if death had not ensued.” See Valiant Ins. Co. v. Webster,567 So.2d 408 , 411 (Fla.1990) (“While the Wrongful Death Act creates independent claims for the survivors, these claims are also derivative in the sense that they are dependent upon a wrong committed upon another person.”); Celotex Corp. v. Meehan,523 So.2d 141 , 147 (Fla.1988) (“[A] wrongful death action is derivative of the injured person’s right, while living, to. recover for personal injury.”). Accordingly, ... we hold that no cause of action for wrongful death survived the decedent in the instant case because she had no right of action at her death.
Id. at 118. Similarly, Florida cases have held that a general release executed by the decedent in resolution of a personal injury action bars any subsequent wrongful death action. See Warren v. Cohen,
While we agree that a wrongful death action belongs to the survivors of the decedent, by statute, such an action is predicated on the “wrongful act, negligence, default or breach of contract or warranty” committed by the defendant which, as the result of the decedent’s death, transformed a personal injury claim into one for wrongful death. See § 768.19, Fla. Stat. (2009). Consequently, courts generally agree that wrongful death claims are derivative in nature, at least in the sense that they are dependent on a wrong committed against the decedent.
Laizure,
We acknowledge that courts in other states are split when considering the question of whether the estate and heirs are bound by an arbitration agreement signed by the decedent, even in states with provisions similar to Florida that predicate a wrongful death claim on the ability of the decedent to have brought suit and recover damages had he or she lived.
Principled arguments exist on both sides of this issue. However, we ultimately conclude that the nature of a wrongful death cause of action in Florida is derivative in the context of determining whether a decedent’s estate and heirs are bound by the decedent’s agreement to arbitrate. The estate and heirs stand in the shoes of the decedent for purposes of whether the defendant is liable and are bound by the decedent’s actions and contracts with respect to defenses and releases. See § 768.19, Fla. Stat. (2008) (requiring for a wrongful death cause of action that “the event would have entitled the person injured to maintain an action and recover damages if death had not ensued”); see also Toombs,
In sum, the wrongful death claims in this case are clearly within the scope of the arbitration agreement. With respect to whether they are arbitrable, we conclude that the estate and statutory heirs are bound by the arbitration agreement to the same extent that Stewart would have been bound. Therefore, they are required to arbitrate their wrongful death claims under the arbitration agreement signed by Stewart.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we answer the certified question in the affirmative and hold that the execution of a nursing home arbitration agreement by a party with the capacity to contract binds the decedent’s estate and statutory heirs in a subsequent wrongful death action arising from an alleged tort within the scope of an otherwise valid arbitration agreement. Accordingly, we approve the Fifth District’s decision.
It is so ordered.
Notes
. Laizure also argues that the arbitration agreement in this case is unconscionable, and the Respondents argue that the arbitration agreement binds the estate and statutory heirs because they are third-party beneficiaries to the agreement. We decline to address both of these arguments because they are outside the scope of, and unrelated to, the certified question before this Court. See Major League Baseball v. Morsani, 790 So.2d 1071, 1080 n. 26 (Fla.2001) (declining to address a claim “because it is outside the scope of the certified question”); State v. Perry,
. This provision was added in 2001. See ch.2001-45, Laws of Fla. At the same time, the Legislature amended section 400.023 to provide that "[s]ections 400.023-400.0238 provide the exclusive remedy for a cause of action for recovery of damages for the personal injury or death of a nursing home resident arising out of negligence or a violation of rights specified in s. 400.022. This section does not preclude theories of recovery not arising out of negligence or s. 400.022 which are available to a resident or to the agency.” Ch.2001-45, Laws of Fla. (emphasis added).
. Compare Ruiz v. Podolsky,