SEABOARD SURETY COMPANY, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AND DANIS INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, D/B/A DANIS-SHOOK, APPELLANTS,
v.
LORETTA CATES, D/B/A SEA GREEN NURSERY, 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.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of a motion to compel arbitration because the defendant failed to file a timely demand for arbitration within the contractually required thirty-day period, which was a precondition to arbitration.
A defendant's failure to file a demand for arbitration within the contractually specified thirty-day period bars arbitration as a matter of law, and the trial court properly determines timeliness without arbitrator involvement.
[1] Failure to file a demand for arbitration within a contractually specified time period bars arbitration as a matter of law, and the trial court properly determines timelin…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLoretta Cates applied for final payment under a contract with Danis Industries Corporation. Danis Industries did not file a demand for arbitration wit…
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 Timeliness Of Arbitration Demand cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Because (1) it was undisputed below that the defendant Danis Industries Corporation did not file a demand for arbitration within thirty (30) days following the date that the plaintiff Loretta Cates d/b/a Sea Green Nursery made an application for final payment under her contract with the defendant, and (2) such a demand within the thirty (30) day period was a precondition for arbitration of any claim made by the plaintiff against the defendant under paragraph 32(c) of the contract between the parties, we conclude that the trial court properly determined, as a matter of law, that the defendant had no right under the subject contract to arbitrate the claim filed below by the plaintiff against the defendant. Given the fact that, as a matter of law, no timely demand for arbitration was filed by the defendant under the subject contract, it is clear that there was no issue of fact for an arbitrator to determine as to the timeliness of the demand for arbitration, compare Public Health Trust v. M.R. Harrison Constr. Corp., 415 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), rev. denied, 427 So. 2d 737 (FIa.1983); Rinker Portland Cement Corp. v. Seidel, 414 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), and that it was proper for the trial court, rather than the arbitrator, to determine this issue. See Anstis Ornstein Assocs., Architects & Planners, Inc. v. Palm Beach County, 554 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Accordingly, the non-final order denying the defendant’s motion to stay the proceedings below and compel arbitration is, in all respects,
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Abel Homes AT Naranja Villas, LLC v. Anselmo Hernandez and Juaquin Lloveras, 960 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…ution. We, therefore, distinguish an arbitration provision which specifies the time provided to make a de [*895] mand for arbitration, and those which simply provide that the demand be made “within a reasonable time.” See Seaboard Sur. Co. v. Cates, 604 So. 2d 570, 571 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)(holding that where the contract provision required that the defendant demand arbitration within thirty days after the plaintiff made an application for final payment, there was no issue of fact as to the timeliness of the dem…
-
Hubbard Constr. Co. v. Jacobs Civil, Inc., 969 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…to compel arbitration was denied by the trial court because the demand was not timely made. On appeal, the Third District affirmed, ruling that the contractor failed to timely make demand for arbitration. Similarly, in Seaboard Surety Co. v. Cates, 604 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), the Third District held that the trial court properly determined, as a matter of law, that the defendant had no right to arbitrate contractual disputes where its contract specifically provided that demand within 30 days was a pre…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- The Pub. Health Tr. OF Dade Cnty. v. M.R. Harrison Constr. Corp., 415 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Anstis Ornstein Assocs. v. Palm Beach Cnty., 554 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Rinker Portland Cement Corp. v. Seidel, 414 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Nova v. State, 414 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)