ADVANTAGE DENTAL HEALTH PLANS INC., APPELLANT,
v.
BENEFICIAL ADMINISTRATORS INC., 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.
Advantage Dental Health Plans appealed a trial court's decision to stay arbitration, arguing the court wrongly refused to arbitrate a dispute about plan renewal. The Fourth District reversed, holding that ambiguities in arbitration clauses must be resolved in favor of arbitration, not against it.
The court held that all ambiguities regarding the scope of an arbitration agreement must be resolved in favor of arbitration rather than against it. Since it was unclear whether the arbitration provision was limited to claims for benefits or also covered the renewal claim, the ambiguity should have been resolved in favor of arbitration.
[1] All doubts as to the scope of an arbitration agreement are to be resolved in favor of arbitration.
[2] An order to arbitrate a dispute should not be denied unless it can be said with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation tha…
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 is a favored means of dispute resolution and courts indulge every reasonable presumption to uphold proceedings resulting in an award”
Establishes the foundational policy that arbitration is favored and courts must presume arbitration agreements are valid
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAdvantage Dental and Beneficial Administrators had a contract containing an arbitration provision. A dispute arose regarding whether the plan was rene…
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 Stay Of Proceedings Pending Arbitration cases and more on FLexlaw
FARMER, Judge.
The trial court stayed arbitration because the contract arbitration provision does not unambiguously exclude the claim in suit from the scope of the arbitration agreement. In so doing, the trial court erred.
Actually, the rule is exactly the opposite from that applied. Our cases hold that all doubts as to the scope of an arbitration agreement are to be resolved in favor of arbitration rather than against it. In Ron-beck Construction Co., Inc. v. Savanna Club Corp., 592 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), we said:
“Our supreme court pointed out in Roe v. Arnica Mutual Insurance Co., 533 So. 2d 279 (Fla.1988), that ‘arbitration is a favored means of dispute resolution and courts indulge every reasonable presumption to uphold proceedings resulting in an award.’ 533 So. 2d at 281. See also Intra-coastal Ventures Corp. v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, 540 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).
“As the federal courts do with comparable provisions under the United States Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. sections 1-14 (1982), we too should resolve all doubts about the scope of an arbitration agreement as well as any questions about waivers thereof in favor of arbitration, rather than against it. See Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983).” 592 So. 2d at 346; see also EMSA Limited Partnership v. Mason, 677 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).1
As the first district held in The Regency Group Inc. v. McDaniels, 647 So. 2d 192,194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994):
“[A]ny time a contract contains an arbitration clause, there is a presumption of arbitrability in the sense that an order to arbitrate the particular grievance should not be denied unless it may be said with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute, (quoting AT & T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of America, 475 U.S. 643, 106 S.Ct. 1415, 89 L.Ed.2d 648 (1986)) (emphasis added).”
Also in Lord & Son Construction Inc. v. Roberts Electrical Contractors Inc., 624 So. 2d 376, 377 n. 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), the court held:
“Moreover, even if the subcontract agreement herein contains some ambiguity, all doubts as to whether the instant dispute was within the scope of the arbitration clause of the general contract should be resolved in favor of arbitration, [c.o.]”
Here, it is not clear from the arbitration provision whether it is limited to claims for benefits. On the other hand, it is equally unclear whether the provision includes this claim as to whether the plan was renewed for another year. Accordingly the trial court was obliged to apply the principle stated in the cases cited and resolve the ambiguity in favor of arbitration of the renewal claim. It was therefore error for the court to grant the stay of arbitration in favor of the litigation.
REVERSED.
GUNTHER, C.J., and SHAHOOD, J., concur. . The decision in Terminix International Co. v. Michaels, 668 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 679 So. 2d 774 (Fla.1996), is distinguishable. It merely holds that there is no contractual ambiguity in the arbitration provision and that the strict liability claim did not “arise out of or relate to the interpretation, performance, or breach of any provision" of the contract. The opinion should be narrowly read and applied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Terminix Int'l Co., LP v. Ponzio, 693 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…ged injuries. It is clear that but for the contract, the Michaels would not have suffered the alleged injury. 668 So. 2d at 1016. The Fourth District has recently explained in Advantage Dental Health Plans, Inc. v. Beneficial Administrators, Inc., 683 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) that Michaels should be “narrowly read and applied” and merely holds that a strict liability claim does not “arise out of or relate to the interpretation, performance, or breach of any provision of the contract.” 683 So. 2d at 11…
-
Royal Prof'l Builders, Inc. v. Roggin, 853 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…ar grievance should not be denied unless it may be said with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute. See Advantage Dental Health Plans, Inc. v. Beneficial Adm’rs, Inc., 683 So. 2d 1133, 1134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). While all doubts as to the scope of an arbitration agreement are to be resolved in favor of arbitration rather than against it, in this case, the arbitration clause at issue did not coyer the disputed claims at issue. See…
-
Presley v. Szerdi, 708 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…992). The slander of title and fraudulent hen claims were “[c]laims, disputes or other matters in question” that arose out of or “related to” the written contract between the parties. See Advantage Dental Health Plans Inc. v. Beneficial Adm’rs Inc., 683 So. 2d 1133, 1134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Universal Employment Agency, 664 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Appellees’ filing of a counterclaim to foreclose its lien did not constitute a waiver of its right to arbitrate. See McDanie…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Commc'ns Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643 (U.S. 1986)
- Ronbeck Constr. Co., Inc. v. Savanna Club Corp. & Savanna Club Realty Inc., 592 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- ROE v. AMICA Mut. Ins. Co., 533 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 1988)
- Intracoastal Ventures Corp. v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 540 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- The Regency Grp., Inc. v. McDANIELS, 647 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Emsa Ltd. P'ship v. Mason, 677 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Terminix Int'l Co., L.P. v. Horst Michaels and Renate Michaels, 668 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Lord & SON Constr., Inc. v. Roberts Elec. Contractors, Inc., 624 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)