ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
WOOLLEY/SWEENEY HOTEL # 5 AND HOMETELS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, APPELLEES
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.
Parties cannot be compelled to arbitrate unless they expressly contract to do so, and the performance bond here contained no arbitration provision.
The dissenting judge believes parties cannot be legally compelled to arbitrate disputes unless they have expressly contracted to do so. The performanc…
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 Provision cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. We approve the trial court’s holding that the appellant, St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, was contractually bound to participate in arbitration with the owner and contractor in a dispute over a hotel construction contract for which the appellant provided a performance bond. The construction contract contained an arbitration provision, and the performance bond incorporated the construction contract by reference. In so doing the appellant bound itself to participate and be bound by the arbitration of any disputes under the construction contract. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company v. West Point Construction Company, 837 F. 2d 1507 (11th Cir.1988).
We also agree with the trial court that the performance bond in question covers any delay damages that may be due the owner under the construction contract. In so holding, we acknowledge conflict with the holding in United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company v. Gulf Florida Development, 365 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
HERSEY, C.J., and DOWNEY, J., concur. ANSTEAD, J., dissents with opinion.
ANSTEAD, Judge,
dissenting.
In my view, parties may not be legally compelled to arbitrate disputes between them unless they have expressly contracted to do so. The performance bond in question contains no arbitration provision. I believe the only purpose of incorporating the construction contract in the performance bond was to specify in a simple manner the extent of performance guaranteed by the surety. Cf. Transamerica Insurance Company v. Yonkers Contracting Company, 49 Misc.2d 512, 267 N.Y.S.2d 669 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1966).
I am sympathetic with the policy considerations favoring arbitration underlying the majority opinion. Federal law now strongly favors arbitration, and Florida law, in my view, should also favor arbitration where there is a legitimate basis for imposing an obligation upon the parties to arbitrate. In the case at hand, however, I am reluctant to compel arbitration on the performance bond where the bond itself contains no arbitration provision. It is one thing to recognize that others have agreed to resolve their disputes by arbitration, but quite another to bind yourself to arbitrate disputes with those other parties.
I recognize that the result in the long run may be the same for appellant in any case since by incorporating the construction contract and the arbitration provisions thereof, the appellant has bound itself to the results of arbitration between the owner and contractor as to the contractor’s performance of the contract. The appellant was also unable to demonstrate to the trial court the existence of any disputes that existed between itself and the owner aside from the underlying disputes between the owner and the contractor.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Larkin Gen. Hosp., Ltd., 593 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 1992)…Fla. 4th DCA), review dismissed, 576 So. 2d 294 (Fla.1990), and Gulf Florida. The Fourth District has interpreted the language in performance bonds to include delay damages. Arbor Club; St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Woolley/Sweeney Hotel No. 5, 545 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 553 So. 2d 1166 (Fla.1989). In doing so, the Fourth District in Arbor Club specifically focused on the following standard language of performance bonds: Whenever Contractor shall be, and declared by Owner to be in def…
-
Henderson Inv. Corp. v. Int'l Fid. Ins. Co., 575 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…lso, this court’s decision in Insurance Co. of North America v. Acousti Engineering Co. of Florida, 549 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), jurisdiction accepted, 557 So. 2d 866 (Fla.1990). St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Woolley/Sweeney Hotel No. 5, 545 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 553 So. 2d 1166 (Fla.1989), stands for the proposition that when a surety bond incorporates a construction contract containing an arbitration clause by reference, the surety binds itself to participate and be bound by…
-
The Arbor Club OF Boca Raton, Inc., Ltd. v. Omega Constr. Co., Inc., 565 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…other relevant provisions of the contract are set forth in the margin.1 Arbor contends on appeal that the issue in this case has been resolved in its favor in our recent case of St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. Woolley/Sweeney Hotel #5, 545 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 553 So. 2d 1166 (Fla.1989), which expressly noted conflict with United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company v. Gulf Florida Development Corporation, 365 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). The Supreme Court of Florida denied r…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States Fid. & Guar. Co. & Chapman & Sons, Inc. v. Gulf Fla. Dev. Corp., 365 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. W. Point Constr. Co., Inc., 837 F.2d 1507 (11th Cir. 1988)