BEEMIK BUILDERS & CONSTRUCTORS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
HUBER PLUMBING, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court erred in denying the motion to stay and compel arbitration, as the parties had agreed to arbitrate and no substantial issue existed regarding the agreement's making.
[1] A court must grant an application for an order to proceed to arbitration when the parties have agreed to arbitrate and there is no substantial issue that such an agreemen…
[2] A broad arbitration clause in a subcontract requiring arbitration of all claims, disputes, or other questions arising out of or relating to the subcontract encompasses cl…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA plumbing subcontractor sued its general contractor for non-payment, theft of services, and fraudulent procurement of additional services. The genera…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Arbitration Clause Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
GLICKSTEIN, Judge.
This is a petition for review by certiorari of an order denying petitioner’s motion to stay and to compel arbitration. We grant the petition and quash the order so that arbitration may proceed.
Petitioner, Beemik Builders & Constructors, Inc., was the general contractor and respondent, Huber Plumbing, Inc., was the plumbing subcontractor on a building project for Coggin-O’Steen, an auto dealer. Article 10 of the contract for the plumbing work called for arbitration of claims, disputes or other questions arising out of or relating to the subcontract.
Respondent, Huber, filed a three-count complaint against petitioner, Beemik Builders, alleging the subcontract agreement. Huber claimed (1) Beemik refused to pay Huber, and illegally transferred Huber’s claim of lien to a bond, (2) Beemik stole services from Huber, and (3) Beemik willfully and fraudulently sought and obtained additional services from Huber, beyond those provided for in the agreement, knowing full well Huber would not be compensated for them. Defendant/petitioner filed a motion to stay and compel arbitration. The trial court denied the motion.
We agree with petitioner’s arguments, the first of which is that pursuant to section 682.03(1), Florida Statutes (1983), a court must grant an application for an order to proceed to arbitration whenever the parties have agreed to arbitrate and the court is satisfied there is no substantial issue that such an agreement was made. The language of the arbitration clause in the agreement between the present parties was very similar to the language in the parallel contract provision in Vic Potamkin Chevrolet, Inc. v. Bloom, 386 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), and identical with that in Morton Z. Levine & Associates, Chartered v. Van Deree, 334 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). In both of those cases certiorari was granted the defendants seeking arbitration of the claims against them. We feel it unnecessary to review the remaining arguments but have considered them all.
HURLEY and BARKETT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Intracoastal Ventures Corp. v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 540 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…otion to compel arbitration under section [*165] 682.03(1) whenever the parties have agreed to arbitrate and the court is satisfied that there is no doubt that such an agreement was made. Beemik Builders & Constructors, Inc. v. Huber Plumbing, Inc., 476 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). We entertain no such doubt in the case at bar. We therefore affirm the trial judge, finding no merit in the remaining subissue appealed. AFFIRMED. GLICKSTEIN, J., and POLEN, MARK E., Associate Judge, concur.…
-
Kessel v. Dugand, 481 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…tition for certiorari, see Vic Potamkin Chevrolet, Inc. v. Bloom, 386 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Co. v. Beaver, 355 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); see also Beemik Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. Huber Plumbing, Inc., 476 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), challenges the trial court’s refusal to compel arbitration of a punitive damage claim by reserving jurisdiction to decide that issue while referring the remainder of the related issues to arbitration. On the authority of Merrill…
Authorities Cited
- VIC Potamkin Chevrolet, Inc. v. Bloom, 386 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Morton Z. Levine & Assocs., Chartered v. van Deree, 334 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)