PRIMECO PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS, ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
COMMONWEALTH DISTRIBUTORS, 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.
PrimeCo appeals a trial court order that partially denied its motion to compel arbitration of all claims in a dispute with Commonwealth Distributors over a distributorship agreement. The court held that all five counts, including fraud, tortious interference, breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, must be submitted to arbitration because the contract's arbitration clause covers "any claim, controversy or dispute between the parties" and limits damages to compensatory only.
All five claims must be submitted to arbitration. The arbitration clause's broad language covering "any claim, controversy or dispute" encompasses all asserted claims, and because the contract limits the arbitrator's authority to compensatory damages only, the breach of implied covenant claim is arbitrable despite raising good faith issues, as no punitive damages can be awarded.
[1] A broad arbitration clause encompassing "any claim, controversy or dispute between the parties" requires arbitration of all disputes arising under the agreement.
[2] A contract provision limiting an arbitrator's authority to award compensatory damages does not preclude arbitration of claims that might otherwise seek punitive damages.
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“any claim, controversy or dispute between the parties ... be resolved by arbitration”
The language of the arbitration clause that the court found to be clear and unambiguous in requiring arbitration of all claims.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePrimeCo and Commonwealth Distributors entered into a one-year distributorship agreement containing an arbitration clause requiring resolution of "any …
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 Provision Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
LEVY, Judge.
PrimeCo Personal Communications (“PrimeCo”) appeals from a trial court Order which partially denied its Motion to Compel Arbitration. Commonwealth Distributors, Inc. (CDI) cross-appeals a ruling in the same Order which granted arbitration of the Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing claim. We reverse in part and affirm in part.
CDI and PrimeCo entered into a one-year distributorship agreement. The agreement provides for automatic renewal unless one of the parties gives written notice of its intent to terminate, or deny renewal, at least 30 days prior to the end of the one-year term. The agreement contains an arbitration provision which requires that “any claim, controversy or dispute between the parties ... be resolved by arbitration.”
At least thirty days prior to the end of the one-year term, PrimeCo gave CDI notice of its intent to deny renewal of the agreement. In response, CDI filed suit against PrimeCo alleging claims for Fraud in the Inducement (Count I), Intentional Interference with Business Relationships (Count II), Breach of Contract (Counts III & IV) and Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Count V). Relying on the arbitration clause, PrimeCo moved to compel arbitration of all counts and to stay the action pending arbitration.
The circuit court granted the motion in part compelling arbitration of the two Breach of Contract claims and the Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing claim.
Additionally, the court stayed the proceedings on the other two claims pending arbitration.
PrimeCo filed this appeal claiming that all five Counts in the Complaint should be submitted to arbitration. CDI cross-appeals the portion of the Order that compels arbitration of the breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim claiming that the Count is not arbitrable because punitive issues are raised. We find, as PrimeCo argues, that all the claims must be submitted to arbitration.
The contract between PrimeCo and CDI is clear and unambiguous to the extent that it provides for arbitration of “any claim, controversy or dispute between the parties.” Terminix Intern. Co. v. Ponzio, 693 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Royal Caribbean Cruises v. Universal Employment Agency, 664 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Beaver Coaches, Inc. v. Revels Nationwide R.V. Sales, Inc., 543 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). See also Beaver Coaches, Inc. v. Revels Nationwide R.V. Sales, Inc., 543 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Gregory v. Electro-Mechanical Corp., 83 F. 3d 382 (11th Cir. 1996).
Additionally, the contract provides that the arbitrator’s authority to award damages is limited to compensatory damages. It is, therefore, abundantly clear that the parties have contractually agreed that neither party will be able to recover punitive damages from the other in connection with any claim or controversy that must be submitted to arbitration pursuant to the contract. See Complete Interiors, Inc. v. Behan, 558 So. 2d 48, 50-51 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Beaver Coaches, 543 So. 2d at 361.
Accordingly, we reverse, and remand with directions that all the claims be submitted to arbitration.
In light of our holding on the main appeal, we find the cross-appeal to be without merit, and affirm.
Reversed in part with directions and affirmed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morton v. Polivchak, 931 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…scope of an arbitration agreement, a claim for punitive damages based on that fraud is subject to arbitration unless the parties have agreed that punitive damages claims are not arbitrable. See PrimeCo Pers. Commc’ns v. Commonwealth Distribs., Inc., 740 So. 2d 585, 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (enforcing contractual provision that “the arbitrator’s authority to award damages is limited to compensatory damages”). We note that the arbitration provision here states that “any remedy not provided for in” the contract “m…
-
The Poole & Kent Co. v. Gusi Erickson Constr. Co., 759 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…DONALD E., Associate Judge, Concur. . The arbitration clause stated that Poole and Gusi would arbitrate "all other disputes” not governed by two other clauses in the contract. See Primeco Personal Communications v. Commonwealth Distributors, Inc., 740 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (involving broad arbitration clause). It is undisputed that this dispute was not governed by the two other clauses. The arbitration clause does not attempt to limit arbitration to claims "arising under” or "arising out of or relat…
Authorities Cited
- Terminix Int'l Co., LP v. Ponzio, 693 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Vance Lamar Larsen v. State, 543 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Complete Interiors, Inc. v. Behan, 558 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Universal Emp. Agency, 664 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- H.S. Gregory v. Electro-Mechanical Corp., 83 F.3d 382 (11th Cir. 1996)