JOEL E. LACEY, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JESSIE E. LACEY, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
HEALTHCARE AND RETIREMENT CORPORATION OF AMERICA, AUTHORIZED TO OPERATE HEARTLAND HEALTH CARE CENTER-BOYNTON BEACH D/B/A HEARTLAND OF BOYNTON BEACH, 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.
An arbitration agreement is void as against public policy if it defeats the purposes of Florida's remedial Nursing Home Resident's Act by capping damages or waiving punitive damages.
[1] An arbitration agreement that caps non-economic damages and waives punitive damages violates public policy by defeating the purposes of Florida's remedial Nursing Home Re…
[2] Contractual limitations that defeat the purpose of a remedial statute may be found void as a matter of law.
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 intelligenceA nursing home resident appealed an order compelling arbitration, challenging an arbitration agreement that capped non-economic damages and waived pun…
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 Non-Economic Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
TAYLOR, J.
Joel E. Lacey appeals an order compelling arbitration of this nursing home case. We conclude that the trial court erred in ordering arbitration, because this arbitration agreement violates public policy by defeating the purposes of Florida’s remedial Nursing Home Resident’s Act (NHRA). See § 400.0060 et seq., Fla. Stat. (2004).
The arbitration agreement in this case is identical to the agreement which this court found unconscionable and violative of public policy in Romano v. Manor Care, Inc., 861 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Most notably, it contains a $250,000 cap on non-economic damages and a waiver of punitive damages.
“A remedial statute is designed to correct an existing law, redress an existing grievance, or introduce regulations conducive to the public good. It is also defined as [a] statute giving a party a mode of remedy for a wrong, where he had none, or a different one, before.” Fonte v. AT & T Wireless Servs., Inc., 903 So. 2d 1019, 1024 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (quoting Adams v. Wright, 403 So. 2d 391, 394 (Fla. 1981)). The NHRA is clearly remedial. Blankfeld v. Richmond Health Care, Inc., 902 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (en banc); Romano, 861 So. 2d at 62. It provides for both compensatory and punitive damages for violations of the Act. § 400.023, Fla. Stat. (2004).
To the extent that a contractual limitation defeats the purpose of a remedial statute, the limitation may be found void as a matter of law. VoiceStream Wireless Corp. v. U.S. Commc’ns, Inc., 912 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). In Blankfeld, this court was presented with a nursing home arbitration agreement which purported to eliminate recovery for negligence. This court stated:
If nursing home residents had to arbitrate under the NHLA rules, some of the remedies provided in the legislation would be substantially affected and, for all intents and purposes, eliminated. The provision requiring arbitration under those rules is accordingly contrary to the public policy behind the statute and therefore void.
Blankfeld, 902 So. 2d at 298. Likewise, the Heartland arbitration agreement eliminates punitive damages, which are expressly provided for in the Act. It also caps non-economic damages at $250,000, which would seem to substantially affect the compensatory damage remedy. These provisions are thus void under the public policy rationale utilized in this district. But see Rollins, Inc. v. Lighthouse Bay Holdings, Ltd., 898 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), rev. den’d, 908 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 2005); Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. v. Petsch, 872 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). In VoiceStream Wireless, 912 So. 2d at 34, the trial court found the arbitration agreement unconscionable. The agreement contained a damages limitation, a provision excluding any right to appeal, and a severability clause. This court utilized the severability clause, finding both the damages limitation and the appeal waiver unenforceable, while enforcing the remaining arbitration agreement.
Likewise in Fonte, the agreement barred attorney’s fees in contravention of FDUTPA but also contained a severability clause. This court stated:
As a general rule, contractual provisions are severable, where the illegal portion of the contract does not go to its essence, and, with the illegal portion eliminated, there remain valid legal obligations.
Fonte, 903 So. 2d at 1024. This court thus severed the clause denying attorney’s fees, but enforced the remaining arbitration obligations.
By contrast, in Presidential Leasing, Inc. v. Krout, 896 So. 2d 938, 942 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), the court noted that the agreement there contained no severance clause, adding that:
The presence of an unlawful provision in an arbitration agreement may serve to taint the entire arbitration agreement, rendering the agreement completely unenforceable.
The instant arbitration agreement contains no severance clause. This alone distinguishes VoiceStream Wireless and Fonte. Moreover, the instant agreement is titled an “arbitration and limitation of liability agreement.” The title alone suggests that the offensive limitations of liability go to the “essence” of the contract. Compare Fonte, 903 So. 2d at 1024; Wilderness Country Club P’hip, Ltd. v. Groves, 458 So. 2d 769, 771 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (“a bilateral contract is severable where the illegal portion of the contract does not go to its essence”).
Because the agreement as a whole is invalid, it was error for the trial court to enforce it by ordering arbitration. We reverse and remand this matter for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
GUNTHER and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Shotts v. OP Winter Haven, Inc., 86 So. 3d 456 (Fla. 2011)…dies provision is not severable, regardless whether the agreement contained a severability clause. See Hanson, 953 So. 2d 773 (rejecting severability where contract contained a severability clause and a provision that adopted the AHLA rules); Lacey, 918 So. 2d 333 (rejecting severability where contract contained no severability clause and contained provisions that capped noneconomic damages at $250,000 and waived punitive damages). And the Fifth District Court of Appeal has held that such a provision is not s…1 / 4
-
Bland v. Health Care & Ret. Corp. OF Am., 927 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…policy grounds, have refused to enforce remedial limitations in nursing home arbitration or have refused totally to [*258] order arbitration where such restrictions are present. See Blankfeld, 902 So. 2d 296; Lacey v. Healthcare & Ret. Corp. of Am., 918 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). The remedial limitations in nursing home arbitration may be troubling to some. After all, the Nursing Home Residents’ Rights Act is “[a] remedial statute ... designed to correct an existing law, redress an existing grievance, or…
-
Alterra Healthcare Corp. (as to Alterra Sterling House of Vero Beach & Clare Bridge Cottage of Vero Beach) v. Bryant, 937 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…repeatedly that arbitration agreements eliminating punitive damages and capping non-economic damages defeat the remedial purpose of the NHRA and are, therefore, void as against public policy. See, e.g., Lacey v. Healthcare & Retirement Corp. of Am., 918 So. 2d 333, 334 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Romano, 861 So. 2d at 61-63; see also Blankfeld v. Richmond Health Care, Inc., 902 So. 2d 296, 298-99 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (finding that an arbitration provision’s limitation on NHRA’s remedies is void as contrary to public…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Betzaida Fonte v. AT&T Wireless Servs., Inc., 903 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Blankfeld v. Richmond Health Care, Inc., 902 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Romano v. Manor Care, Inc., 861 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Adams v. Wright, 403 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 1981)
- 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)
- Rollins, Inc. v. Lighthouse BAY Holdings, Ltd., 898 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Voicestream Wireless Corp. v. U.S. Commc'ns, Inc., 912 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Wilderness Country Club P'ship, Ltd. v. Groves, 458 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Logsdon v. State, 908 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 2005)