ANSTIS ORNSTEIN ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Arbitration Clause Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the trial court’s order, the effect of which was to deny appellant’s prayer for injunction of arbitration; and we hold, on remand, that it is the trial court’s responsibility, not the arbitrator’s, to determine the question of whether the statute of limitations bars arbitration here. See Union County School District No. 1 v. Valley Inland Pacific Constructors, Inc., 59 Or. App. 602, 652 P. 2d 349 (1982); Trans-America Ins. Co. v. Lumbermen’s Casualty Ins. Co., 77 A.D.2d 5, 432 N.Y.S.2d 269 (1980), rev. denied, 53 N.Y.2d 602, 439 N.Y.S.2d 1026, 421 N.E. 2d 853 (1981); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Orlando, 262 Cal.App.2d 858, 69 Cal.Rptr. 702 (1968).
GLICKSTEIN and GARRETT, JJ„ concur. ANSTEAD, J., dissents with opinion.
ANSTEAD, Judge,
dissenting.
I believe the trial court was eminently correct in denying the appellant’s motion for a stay of arbitration. Legal proceedings between these parties began when the appellee-county filed its claim in court. The appellant-architect filed a motion to dismiss specifically asserting that the county’s claim must be arbitrated. The court granted the architect’s motion and ordered the parties to arbitrate the claim. Months later, after arbitration proceedings were begun on the claim, the architect shifted gears and filed its own lawsuit asserting that the claim should not be arbitrated because the claim was barred by the statute of limitations, and that the limitations issue must be decided in court. It seems to me that the architect, having successfully claimed its right to arbitration earlier should now be estopped from withdrawing the limitations issue from arbitration.
In addition, I believe the trial court was correct on the merits. The arbitration clause in question is a broad and comprehensive one covering all disputes between the parties. Another clause provided that the claim for arbitration must be filed within a reasonable time, not to exceed the applicable legal limitation period. I see no reason why the arbitrators cannot properly resolve any dispute between the parties as to compliance with this provision. The trial court cited several authorities in its order which have so held. See The Public Health Trust of Dade County v. M.R. Harrison Const. Gory,, 415 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); County of Durham v. Richards & Assoc., Inc., 742 F. 2d 811 (4th Cir. 1984); and Louis Dreyfus Corp. v. Cook Indus., Inc., 505 F.Supp. 4 (S.D.N.Y.1980).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
O'Keefe Architects, Inc. v. CED Constr. P'rs, Ltd., 944 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 2006)…ision required arbitration on all issues related to the contract. Id. at 120. The Second District acknowledged that the Fourth District had reached a contrary conclusion in Anstis Omstein Associates, Architects & Planners, Inc. v. Palm Beach County, 554 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), but agreed with then Judge Anstead’s dissent: The arbitration clause in question is a broad and comprehensive one covering [*186] all disputes between the parties. Another clause provided that the claim for arbitration must be…
-
Victor v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 606 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24-25, 103 S.Ct. 927, 941-942, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983). . Vernon in turn relied on a previous 2 to 1 decision from the same court, Anstis Omstein Assocs., Architects and Planners, Inc. v. Palm Beach County, 554 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). The Anstis court relied on Union County School Dist. No. 1 v. Valley Inland Pacific Constructors, Inc., 652 P. 2d 349 (Or.App.1982), which held that whether a claim is barred by the statute of limitations should be decided by th…
-
Marschel v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 609 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…r been served with an application to compel arbitration. N.Y.Civ.Prac.Law § 7503(b). . Citing In Re Vernon v. Shearson Lehman Bros., 587 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), and Anstis Ornstein Assocs., Architects & Planners, Inc. v. Palm Beach County, 554 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). As pointed out in Victor, the cases relied upon in Vernon did not involve application of:the FAA. . The Supreme Court emphasized that the FAA does not contain an express preemptive provision, nor does it reflect a congressional…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The Pub. Health Tr. OF Dade Cnty. v. M.R. Harrison Constr. Corp., 415 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Cnty. OF Durham v. Richards & Assocs., Inc., 742 F.2d 811 (4th Cir. 1984)