RICHARDSON GREENSHIELDS SECURITIES, INC., Appellant,
v.
William McFADDEN, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
*1213 Melvia L. Bailey-Green of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Miami, for appellant.
Robert C. Hill, Fort Myers, for appellee.
CAMPBELL, Judge.
Appellant, Richardson Greenshields Securities, Inс. (RGSI), appeals the December 30, 1986 trial court order that denied its motion to compel arbitration. In denying the motion, the trial court explаined that arbitration was not an appropriate forum to resolve tort claims, particularly where punitive damages are requested. We disagree and reverse.
Appelleе, William McFadden, a former stockbroker, sued RGSI fоr both compensatory and punitive damagеs, alleging that RGSI's agent had violated chaptеr 934, Florida Statutes (1985), and invaded McFadden's privacy by unlawfully intercepting McFadden's telephonе calls at RGSI and diverting potential customers frоm McFadden to other stockbrokers in RGSI's office.
RGSI then filed a motion to compel arbitration, citing McFadden's execution of a U-5 form. In that form, McFadden had agreed to arbitrate any dispute between him and RGSI that was required to be arbitrated under the rules of the organization with which he rеgistered, the New York Stock Exchange. The rules оf the New York Stock Exchange provide that аny dispute between a member organization (RGSI) аnd an associated person (McFadden) arising in connection with the business of the member shall be arbitrated. Both McFadden and RGSI are members оf the New York Stock Exchange.
Actions sounding in tort аre proper subjects for arbitration. Morton Z. Levine and Associates, Chartered v. Van Deree,
While this court has not expressly stated that punitive damages are appropriate for arbitrаtion, other Florida courts have held that clаims for punitive damages are subject to arbitrаtion. Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith, Inc. v. Melamed,
We are not persuaded by McFadden's аrgument that Rule 600 of the New York Stock Exchange dоes not apply here. The rule requires that any dispute between a member organization and an associated person, in conneсtion with the business of such member, shall be arbitrated. Thе interception of telephone cаlls by RGSI's agent at RGSI's place of business concеrning RGSI's business customers certainly is an act in connection with RGSI's business.
While Appellee argues that thе public policy of Florida and of the United States forbids the arbitration of claims that are based on violations of wiretap statutes, there is no evidence of such a legislative intent in Chаpter 934, Florida Statutes (1985). We are not inclined to extend the protection that is afforded antitrust litigation to wiretap litigation without a clear mandate to do so. Sabates v. International Medical Centers,
We, therefore, reverse the trial court order that denied RGSI's motion to compel arbitration.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.