KINCAID CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, ETC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
WORSHAM UNDERGROUND UTILITY CONSTRUCTION, ETC., APPELLEE
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.
This case involves an appeal from a trial court's denial of a motion to compel arbitration. The appellate court affirmed the denial, holding that the contract's arbitration clause only applied to price disputes, not disagreements about the scope of work.
No, the arbitration clause is limited to resolving disagreements about the price of extras, not disputes about the scope of work or responsibility for furnishing materials.
[1] A contract provision requiring arbitration for disputes regarding the price of extra work does not mandate arbitration for disputes concerning whether certain work or mat…
[2] Arbitration is required only when the parties disagree on the monetary value of changes to a contract, not when they dispute the scope of the original agreement.
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 intelligence“No changes are to be made, however, except upon written order from Contractor and Contractor shall not be held liable to Sub-Contractor for any extra labor or materials furnished without such written order.”
Establishes the requirement for written orders for changes and limits liability.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKincaid Construction Company and Seaboard Surety Company appealed a trial court's order denying Kincaid's motion to compel arbitration and stay procee…
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 Scope Of Work cases and more on FLexlaw
PETERSON, Judge.
Kincaid Construction Company and Seaboard Surety Company appeal a nonfinal order denying Kincaid’s motion to compel arbitration and both companies’ motions to stay the proceedings during arbitration. We affirm.
This appeal turns on the interpretation of a contract that provides:
Sub-Contractor shall make all alterations, furnish the materials for and perform all extra work or omit any work owner or architect may require without modifying this agreement at a reasonable addition to or reduction from the sub-contract price herein named and prorated to the same. No changes are to be made, however, except upon written order from Contractor and Contractor shall not be held liable to Sub-Contractor for any extra labor or materials furnished without such written order. The amount to be paid by Contractor or allowed by Sub-Contractor by virtue of the same shall be stated in such order if the amount can be agreed upon, but if not, then it shall be fixed by arbitration, each of the parties hereto, having the right to name one arbitrator and the Architect or Engineer having the right to name the third arbitrator, all costs for such arbitration shall be borne equally by the parties hereto, but pending such arbitration, the work shall proceed as directed.
The trial court denied Kincaid Construction Company’s motion to compel arbitration based upon the language, and we agree with the denial. The issue before the trial court was not the determination of an amount to be paid for extras. The issue was whether Worsham Underground Utility Construction was to furnish certain telemetry equipment for a lift station as part of a change order and whether Worsham or the City of Orlando was responsible for the furnishing of flow meters. The contract provision requires arbitration to resolve only disagreements about price, not disagreements about whether equipment and installation services were to be included in the contract price.
We affirm and remand for further proceedings before the trial court.
AFFIRMED and REMANDED.
W. SHARP and GOSHORN, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Regency Grp., Inc. v. McDANIELS, 647 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…wick). I would, therefore, affirm the decision of the trial court. Parties to a contract may provide that only certain disputes arising out of the agreement will be subject to arbitration. Kincaid Constr. Co. v. Worsham Underground Utility Constr., 566 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Only those claims which the parties have agreed are arbitrable should be subject to mandatory arbitration. All American Semiconductor, Inc. v. Unisys Corp., 637 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). See also Roe v. Arnica Mut. Ins. Co.,…