ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD., APPELLANT,
v.
UNIVERSAL EMPLOYMENT AGENCY, 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.
Royal Caribbean Cruises appealed an order denying its motion to compel arbitration of a tort dispute with a Colombian employment agency. The court held that tort claims arising out of a hiring agreement fall within a broad arbitration clause and must be arbitrated.
The court held that the arbitration clause applies to the tort claims. Although the action sounds entirely in tort and does not claim breach of contract or involve contract performance or interpretation, it clearly "arises out of or relates to" the agreement because the entire controversy concerns letters of employment that were indispensable to the hiring agreement's operation.
[1] Arbitration clauses are to be given the broadest possible interpretation to accomplish the purpose of resolving controversies out of court.
[2] A tort action may be subject to an arbitration clause if the dispute arises out of or relates to the agreement, even if the action does not claim a breach of contract.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“arbitration clauses like this are to be given the broadest possible interpretation to accomplish the salutary purpose of resolving controversies out of court”
Establishes the governing principle for interpreting arbitration agreements under federal and Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRoyal Caribbean Cruises and Universal Employment Agency entered into a hiring agreement whereby UEA would provide prospective crew members. Royal Cari…
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 Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
This is an appeal from an order denying the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. We reverse.
Royal Caribbean Cruises entered into a “hiring agreement” with appellee, Universal Employment Agency, a Colombian corporation, under which UEA was to provide the shipping company with the names of prospective crew members. If Royal Caribbean decided to hire such a person, it issued UEA a “letter of employment,” to be used by the crewman to secure the necessary visa to enter the United States where he would join a crew. During the term of the agreement, several Colombians presented what appeared to be fraudulent letters of employment to the American Embassy in Bogota. In this action, UEA claimed that Royal Caribbean had falsely told the Embassy that the agency was responsible for the fraud, with the result that it was forced to suspend its employment operations. The complaint sought money damages for the alleged intentional torts of defamation, fraud, and business interference.
The hiring agreement contains a standard American Arbitration Association clause which provides that:
[a]ny controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breach of any term or provision hereof shall be settled by arbitration in the City of Miami, State of Florida, U.S.A. in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association.
The issue on appeal is whether that clause applies to this action. We find that it does.
It is now an axiom of federal, see Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983), and Florida law, see State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Middleton, 648 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), that arbitration clauses like this are to be given the broadest possible interpretation to accomplish the salutary purpose of resolving controversies out of court. In this case, the entire underlying controversy concerns the letters of employment which were a key element and were, in fact, indispensable to the operation of the hiring agreement between the parties. The dispute thus clearly had its “origin or genesis in the contract,” Sweet Dreams Unlimited v. Dial-A-Mattress Int’l, Ltd., 1 F. 3d 639, 642 (7th Cir.1993), and was both “directly related to, and ... would not have occurred but for” the relationship it established. Chase Manhattan Inv. Sens., Inc. v. Miranda, 658 So. 2d 181, 182 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).
Since all this is true, in turn, this action — even though it sounds entirely in tort and neither claims a breach of the con tract nor involves its performance or interpretation — must be deemed to be one “arising out of or relating to [the] Agreement” within the meaning of the clause in question. In common with apparently every other court which has interpreted this language, we therefore conclude that the present action must be referred to arbitration. Sweet Dreams, 1 F. 3d at 639; Carib Aviation & Marine Consultants, Ltd. v. Mitsubishi Aircraft Int’l, Inc., 640 F.Supp. 582 (S.D.Fla. 1986); Beaver Coaches, Inc. v. Revels Nationwide R.V. Sales, 543 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); see also Chase Manhattan, 658 So. 2d at 181, 182 n. 1, and cases cited (arbitration required for tort actions “arising out of ... employment”).
Compare Mediterranean Enters, v. Ssangyong Corp., 708 F. 2d 1458, 1463 (9th Cir.1983) (construing clauses requiring arbitration of disputes “arising under the Agreement”); In re Kinoshita & Co., 287 F. 2d 951 (2d Cir.1961) (same).
See generally Stinsonr-Head, Inc. v. City of Sanibel, 661 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).
Accordingly the order below is reversed and the cause remanded to stay the proceedings below pending arbitration of the issues raised by the appellee’s complaint.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Roth v. Cohen, 941 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…ts regarding the alleged breach of rights and obligations that exist under the design contract, they have a sufficient nexus to that contract as to fall within the arbitration clause. Cf. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Universal Employment Agency, 664 So. 2d 1107, 1109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)(where contract between the parties provided for arbitration of “any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement,” claims for defamation, fraud, and [*501] business interference clearly had their origin…
-
Ocwen Fin. Corp. v. Holman, 769 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…344 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). Arbitration clauses are to be given the broadest possible interpretation in order to accomplish the purpose of resolving controversies outside of the courts. See Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Universal Employment Agency, 664 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). We reject appellees’ three primary arguments in this case, which are that: (1) the agreement to arbitrate was only as to claims between the named buyer and seller; (2) Ocwen and the individual defendants were not “parties” to the…
-
Coriat v. Global Assurance Grp., Inc, 862 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…regard to the pleader’s ability to prove them. See K.W. Brown and Co. v. McCutchen, 819 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Here, the trial court granted the motion to dismiss and cited to Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Universal Employment Agency, 664 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Royal Caribbean held that the cause of action arose out of contract and thus the contract clause requiring the claims to be settled by arbitration governed, even though the aetion sounded entirely in tort. See Royal Caribbean Cru…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1983)
- Mediterranean Enters., Inc. v. Ssangyong Corp., 708 F.2d 1458 (9th Cir. 1983)
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. & Richard Nerndt v. Middleton, 648 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Vance Lamar Larsen v. State, 543 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- In re the Petition of Kinoshita & Co., Ltd., 287 F.2d 951 (2d Cir. 1961)
- MT. Hawley Ins. Co. v. Brickell Town House Ass'n, Inc., 661 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Stinson-Head, Inc. v. City OF Sanibel, 661 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Vandenburgh v. State, 658 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Chase Manhattan Inv. Servs., Inc. v. Edilberto J. Miranda, 658 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Carib Aviation & Marine Consultants, Ltd. v. Mitsubishi Aircraft Int'l, Inc., 640 F. Supp. 582 (S.D. Fla. 1986)