OLSON ELECTRIC CO., INC., APPELLANT,
v.
THE WINTER PARK REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, 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.
Olson Electric appealed an order compelling arbitration, arguing that the defendant waived its right to arbitration by conducting discovery on the merits before filing a motion to compel arbitration. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the defendant's discovery conduct was inconsistent with its arbitration claim and therefore constituted a waiver of the arbitration right.
The court held that under the totality of the circumstances, the defendants waived their right to seek arbitration by issuing discovery requests directed to the merits of the lawsuit, as such conduct was inconsistent with their claim that the matter was subject to arbitration.
[1] A party waives the right to arbitration by acting inconsistently with that right under the totality of the circumstances.
[2] Initiating discovery on the merits of a lawsuit before moving to compel arbitration constitutes conduct inconsistent with the right to arbitrate.
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“The right to arbitration, like any contract right, can be waived. The [United States] Supreme Court has made clear that the 'strong federal policy in favor of enforcing arbitration agreements' is based upon the enforcement of contract, rather than a preference for arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism.”
Establishes that arbitration rights are subject to waiver like any other contract right, and that the federal policy favoring arbitration does not override waiver principles.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOlson Electric filed suit against Winter Park Redevelopment Agency and Sydgan Corporation for foreclosure of a construction lien and breach of contrac…
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 Arbitrable Issue cases and more on FLexlaw
PALMER, C.J.
Olson Electric Company (Olson) appeals the non-final order entered by the trial court directing the parties to proceed to arbitration. Concluding that the right to arbitration was waived by the appellees, we reverse.1
Olson filed suit against the Winter Park Redevelopment Agency and Sydgan Corporation (collectively “WPRA”) setting forth claims for foreclosure of a construction lien and breach of contract.
WPRA filed an answer generally denying liability and alleging several affirmative defenses, including the defense that Olson’s claims were subject to arbitration. However, instead of utilizing the provisions of Florida’s Arbitration Code to immediately move to compel arbitration, which would have resulted in the stay of the underlying proceedings pending resolution of the arbitration issue,2 WPRA proceeded to propound discovery pleadings directed to the merits of the underlying complaint. After propounding such discovery, WPRA filed a motion to compel arbitration. The trial court granted the motion and ordered the parties to proceed to arbitration. This appeal timely followed.
Olson argues that the trial court reversibly erred in ordering the parties to proceed to arbitration because the undisputed facts demonstrate that WPRA waived its right to seek arbitration by initiating discovery on the merits of the lawsuit before filing a motion to compel arbitration. We agree.
In Mora v. Abraham Chevrolet-Tampa, Inc., 913 So. 2d 32, 33-34 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), the court explained that the applicable standard of review regarding an order compelling arbitration based on undisputed facts is de novo. Accord Avid Eng’g, Inc. v. Orlando Mkt., Ltd., 809 So. 2d 1, 3 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
In Roth v. Cohen, 941 So. 2d 496, 499 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), the Third District explained the analysis to be applied by the trial courts when considering a party’s motion to compel arbitration:
When considering a motion to compel arbitration, three factors need to be considered: (1) whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists, (2) whether an arbi-trable issue exists, and (3) whether the right to arbitration was waived. See Seifert v. U.S. Home Corp., 750 So. 2d 633, 636 (Fla.1999).
Here, no dispute existed as to the validity of the parties’ arbitration agreement or whether an arbitrable issue existed. The only issue presented to the trial court was whether WPRA waived its right to seek arbitration.
In Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. v. Saldukas, 896 So. 2d 707 (Fla.2005), the Court quoted National Foundation for Cancer Research v. AG. Edwards & Sons, 821 F. 2d 772, 774 (D.C.Cir.1987), in discussing the issue of waiver:
The right to arbitration, like any contract right, can be waived. The [United States] Supreme Court has made clear that the ‘strong federal policy in favor of enforcing arbitration agreements’ is based upon the enforcement of contract, rather than a preference for arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism. Thus, the question of whether there has been waiver in the arbitration agreement context should be analyzed in much the same way as in any other contractual context. The essential question is whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the defaulting party has acted inconsistently with the arbitration right.
Id. at 711.
We hold that under the totality of the circumstances presented in this case, WPRA waived its right to seek arbitration by issuing discovery requests directed to the merits of the lawsuit because such conduct was inconsistent with the claim asserted in its answer that the matter was subject to arbitration.
Accordingly, the trial court’s order directing the parties to proceed to arbitration is reversed and this matter is remand ed for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ORFINGER and LAWSON, JJ., concur. . Appellate jurisdiction is proper pursuant to rule 9.130(3)(C)(iv) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure which authorizes appeals to the district courts of non-final orders that determine the entitlement of a party to seek arbitration.
. See § 682.03, Fla. Stat. (2007).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. McLEOD, 15 So. 3d 682 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…th District have unequivocally held that propounding discovery directed to the merits of pending litigation before moving to compel arbitration results in a waiver of the right to arbitration. See Olson Elec. Co. v. Winter Park Redevelopment Agency, 987 So. 2d 178, 179 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Estate of Orlanis ex rel. Marks v. Oakwood Terrace Skilled Nursing & Rehab. Ctr., 971 So. 2d 811, 812-13 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Coastal Sys. Dev., Inc. v. Bunnell Found., Inc., 963 So. 2d 722, 724 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). The First…
-
Lion Gables Realty Ltd. v. Randall Mech., Inc., 65 So. 3d 1098 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…e unequivocally held that propounding discovery related to the merits of pending litigation before moving to compel arbitration results in a waiver of the right to arbitration.”) (citations omitted); Olson Electric. Co. v. Winter Park Redev. Agency, 987 So. 2d 178, 179 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (reversing order compelling arbitration because, under the totality of circumstances, the defendant acted inconsistently with the right to arbitrate by propounding discovery requests directed to the merits of the lawsuit); E…1 / 2
-
Ibis Lakes Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Ibis Isle Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., 102 So. 3d 722 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…a. 4th DCA 2010) (“[T]he active participation in litigation or the propounding of discovery would be circumstances where the right to arbitrate would be deemed waived.” (emphasis added)); see also Olson Elec. Co. v. Winter Park Redevelopment Agency, 987 So. 2d 178, 179 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Estate of Orlanis ex rel. Marks v. Oakwood Terrace Skilled Nursing & Rehab. Ctr., 971 So. 2d 811, 812-13 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). Filing a motion to compel arbitration before requesting discovery is not necessarily dispositive;…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Seifert v. U.S. Home Corp., 750 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1999)
- Raymond James Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Saldukas, 896 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 2005)
- Nat'l Found. for Cancer Research v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 821 F.2d 772 (D.C. Cir. 1987)
- Roth v. Cohen, 941 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- Mora v. Abraham Chevrolet-Tampa, Inc., 913 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Avid Eng'g, Inc. v. Orlando Marketplace Ltd., 809 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)