STEVE BERMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
ALAMO RENT A CAR, 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.
Berman appealed an order compelling arbitration of his fraud-induced employment dispute with Alamo Rent A Car. The court affirmed, finding that Berman's fraud claims relating to his employment agreements fell within the scope of arbitration provisions contained in both agreements, and that any ambiguity should be resolved in favor of arbitration.
The court affirmed the order compelling arbitration, holding that Berman's claims relating to the terms and conditions of his employment and the alleged invalidity of the agreements fall within the scope of the arbitration provisions, and any ambiguity regarding applicability should be resolved in favor of arbitration.
[1] A claim of fraudulent inducement to enter into an agreement containing an arbitration clause is subject to arbitration if the claim relates to the terms and conditions of…
[2] Any doubts as to the applicability of arbitration provisions are properly resolved in favor of arbitration.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Appellant's claims, which relate to terms and conditions of his employment under, and the alleged invalidity of, the two agreements, fall within the parameters of the arbitration provisions in the agreements.”
Establishes that fraud claims relating to employment terms are covered by arbitration clauses
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBerman entered into a consulting agreement with Alamo containing an arbitration provision. His position was later modified through a FamPact agreement…
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 Ambiguity In Contract Provisions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm an order compelling arbitration.
Appellant claims that he was fraudulently induced to accept a position with Appellee. Appellant and Appellee initially entered into a consulting agreement which contained an arbitration provision that “[a]ny dispute arising out of or relating to this Agreement shall be submitted to and settled by means of binding arbitration, which shall be held in Broward County, Florida.” Appellant’s position with the company was subsequently modified by an agreement with an arbitration clause providing, “If I claim that Alamo has violated this FamPact, I agree that the dispute shall be submitted to and resolved through binding arbitration administered by the American Arbitration Association.”
Appellant contends that Appellee intentionally made false statements and commitments that induced him to leave his former employment. Appellant did not seek rescission of the arbitration clauses in either agreement on the grounds of misrepresentation. Instead, his allegations went to the agreements and his employment status in general. Appellant contends that he was fraudulently induced to enter into the employment relationships, represented in each agreement with Appellee, by both the initial false promises and their repetition incident to the FamPact.1
Appellant’s claims, which relate to terms and conditions of his employment under, and the alleged invalidity of, the two agreements, fall within the parameters of the arbitration provisions in the agreements. Although we acknowledge some ambiguity in the second provision, any doubts as to the applicability of the arbitration provisions are properly resolved by the trial court in favor of arbitration. See Advantage Dental Health Plans Inc. v. Beneficial Adm’rs. Inc., 683 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Ronbeck Constr. Co., Inc. v. Savanna Club Corp., 592 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
STONE, C.J., TAYLOR, J., and GLICKSTEIN, HUGH S., Senior Judge, concur. . There was an economic loss rule issue addressed in the trial court that is not raised in this appeal and, therefore, we do not comment on its application.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lude Henderson v. Coral Springs Nissan, Inc., 757 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…use. As such, the trial court had no basis upon which to require the parties to arbitrate their dispute. This case is distinguishable from the fraudulent inducement cases upon which Coral Springs Nissan relies. See Berman v. Alamo Rent A Car, Inc., 717 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Passerrello v. Robert L. Lipton, Inc., 690 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). In those cases, the contracts were valid on their face, whereas here, the contract no longer existed at the time the motion to compel arbitration was mad…
Authorities Cited
- Ronbeck Constr. Co., Inc. v. Savanna Club Corp. & Savanna Club Realty Inc., 592 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Advantage Dental Health Plans Inc. v. Beneficial Administrators Inc., 683 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)