EXTENDICARE HEALTH SERVICES, INC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
ESTATE OF BENJAMIN PATTERSON, ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Extendicare and Partners Health Group appealed a trial court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration in a wrongful death negligence suit filed by the estate of a nursing home resident. The court affirmed, holding that the nursing home operators could not compel arbitration because the resident never signed the arbitration agreement and was not an intended third-party beneficiary of it.
The court held that the trial court properly denied the motion to compel arbitration because Patterson neither signed the agreement nor qualified as an intended third-party beneficiary to it. A non-signatory cannot be bound by an arbitration clause unless the non-signatory is an intended third-party beneficiary of the contract.
[1] A party not signatory to an arbitration agreement cannot compel arbitration unless they are an intended third-party beneficiary of that agreement.
[2] A nursing home resident's claims for violation of statutory rights and negligence are not subject to an arbitration agreement to which the resident was neither a signator…
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“Since Patterson never signed and is not a third party beneficiary of the agreement, the trial court properly denied appellants' motion to compel arbitration.”
The court's primary holding that the arbitration clause could not be enforced against a non-signatory who is not an intended third-party beneficiary.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBenjamin Patterson was a resident of University Health and Rehabilitation Center — West, a nursing home operated by Partners Health Group, LLC. Partne…
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 Binding Arbitration cases and more on FLexlaw
Partners Health Group, LLC (an alleged operator of a nursing home), Ex-tendicare Health Services, Inc. and Extendicare, Inc. (parent corporations of Partners), appeal from a non-final order which denied their motion to compel arbitration1 in a lawsuit filed by the personal representative of the estate of Benjamin Patterson, a former resident of the nursing home (University Health and Rehabilitation Center — West). The complaint alleges that Partners and others deprived or infringed on Patterson’s rights under Chapter 400, the Nursing Home Resident’s Rights Act, and that their negligent actions caused Patterson damage, and caused his wrongful death. The trial court denied the motion to compel on the ground it was based on a Consulting Agreement dated November 1, 2000, which was not signed by Patterson, and under which he was not an intended third party beneficiary. We affirm.
The provision for arbitration appears. in an agreement between Partners and Age Institute Holdings, Inc. (the owner of the nursing home) and Age Institute of Florida, Inc., (an alleged manager of the nursing home). It provides:
13.18 Dispute Resolution. In the event that a dispute arises out of this Agreement which the parties cannot resolve by negotiation, the dispute shall be settled by binding arbitration conducted in accordance with the rules and regulations of the American Arbitration Association unless the parties select another arbitration service through mutual agreement. Demand for such arbitration shall be made by either party within thirty (30) days.
Appellants contend that their only connection to the nursing home was through this agreement and that they supplied financial support services for the manager, Age Institute of Florida, Inc. However, Patterson never signed the agreement and he does not appear to be a third party beneficiary of the agreement. Further, appellants assert that Patterson was not an intended third party beneficiary.2 As a third party beneficiary, Patterson could be bound by the agreement, including the arbitration provision, and he could potentially sue for breach of the agreement.3
Although Patterson’s lack of third party beneficiary status could theoretically limit his ability to sue for a breach of the agreement, in this case the suit alleges violation of statutory duties under Chapter 400 and negligence — not a breach of the consulting contract.
Since Patterson never signed and is not a third party beneficiary of the agreement, the trial court properly denied appellants’ motion to compel arbitration. See Technical Aid Corp. v. Tomaso, 814 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (defendant was not entitled to invoke right to proceed to arbitration in an agreement between plaintiff and another defendant where defendant was neither a signatory to the agreement nor an intended third party beneficiary of the contract); Morgan Stanley DW, Inc. v. Holliday, 873 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (in lawsuit by beneficiary or trust against trustees and brokerage firm, beneficiary was not bound by arbitration clause in customer account agreement between trustees and brokerage firm under third party beneficiary theory).
AFFIRMED.
GRIFFIN and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. .This court has jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv) (authorizing appeals from non-final orders which determine a party’s entitlement to arbitration). The standard of review is de novo. Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Petsch, 872 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 884 So. 2d 23 (Fla.2004); Stacy David, Inc. v. Consuegra, 845 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
. In their motion to compel arbitration, appellants stated "The Extendicare/Partners Defendants assert that Mr. Patterson was not a third party beneficiary of the subject contract.” (emphasis in original)
. Hirshenson v. Spaccio, 800 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Liberty Communications, Inc. v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., 733 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Terminix Int'l Co. LP v. Ponzio, 693 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Blankfeld v. Richmond Health Care, Inc., 902 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…, Measuring Quality of Care for Nursing Home Residents — Considering Unintended Consequences (Nov.2002) (www. american-geriatrics. org/products/positionpapers/ unintended — conseq. shtml). . See Extendicare Health Serv. Inc. v. Estate of Patterson, 898 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (not NHLA arbitration provision); Germann v. Age Institute of Fla. Inc., So. 2d -, 30 Fla. L. Weekly D383, 2005 WL 292348 (Fla. 2d DCA Feb. 9, 2005) (not NHLA arbitration provision); Rollins, Inc. v. Lighthouse Bay Holdings Ltd.,…
-
Stalley v. Transitional Hosps. Corp. OF Tampa, Inc., 44 So. 3d 627 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…y the actual parties to the arbitration agreement can be compelled to arbitrate. See Alterra Healthcare Corp. v. Estate of Linton ex rel. Graham, 953 So. 2d 574, 579 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Extendicare Health Servs., [*630] Inc. v. Estate of Patterson, 898 So. 2d 989, 991 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Regency Island, Dunes, Inc. v. Foley & Assocs. Constr. Co., 697 So. 2d 217, 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). However, an exception to this general rule exists when the signatory of the arbitration agreement is authorized to act as…
-
Laizure v. Avante AT Leesburg, Inc., 44 So. 3d 1254 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…A 2009); Shotts v. OP Winter Haven, Inc., 988 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Estate of Orlanis ex rel. Marks v. Oakwood Terrace Skilled Nursing & Rehab. Ctr., 971 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Extendicare Health Servs., Inc. v. Estate of Patterson, 898 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). There are a number of well-established general principles that govern agreements to arbitrate. Florida public policy favors arbitration. See, e.g., Bland, ex rel. Coker v. Health Care & Ret. Corp. of Am., 927 So. 2d 252, 258 (F…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Terminix Int'l Co., LP v. Ponzio, 693 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Stacy David, Inc. v. Consuegra, 845 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. v. Petsch, 872 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- In the Interest of A.G. v. Dep't Of Child. & Fam. Servs., 872 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Liberty Commc'ns, Inc. v. MCI Telecomms. Corp., 733 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Hirshenson v. Spaccio, 800 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Morgan Stanley DW Inc. v. Halliday, 873 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Fredrick Hollimon v. State, 800 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Tech. AID Corp. v. Tomaso, 814 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)