Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

October 21, 2016 by admin

Trial court erred in entering summary judgment for plaintiff subcontractor without ruling on defendant contractor’s motion to compel arbitration

41
Fla. L. Weekly D2336a
op of Form

Contracts
— Arbitration — Action by subcontractor against contractor alleging
contractor’s failure to make payments under contract — Trial court erred in
entering summary judgment for plaintiff subcontractor without ruling on
defendant contractor’s motion to compel arbitration

AMERICAN
EAGLE VETERAN CONTRACTING, LLC, Appellant, v. MARK D. EILAND AND ARCHITECTURAL
DRYWALL SYSTEMS, INC., Appellees. 5th District. Case No. 5D15-4483. Opinion
filed October 14, 2016. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County,
Sandra C. Upchurch, Judge. Counsel: Craig A. Brand, of The Brand Law Firm,
P.A., Orlando, for Appellant. No Appearance for Appellees.

(PER
CURIAM.) American Eagle Veteran Contracting, LLC (“American Eagle”), appeals
the trial court’s final order of summary judgment entered in favor of Mark D.
Eiland and Architectural Drywall Systems, Inc. (“Architectural Drywall”).1 American Eagle argues the trial court
erred in entering summary judgment against it without ruling on its motion to
compel arbitration. We agree.

According
to the complaint, American Eagle is a contractor on a larger project owned by
Kellogg, Brown, and Root. American Eagle subcontracted with Architectural
Drywall. Architectural Drywall claimed that American Eagle failed to make
payments under the contract and brought suit for breach of contract.2 In response, American Eagle filed a
motion to stay the proceedings pending arbitration, pursuant to Article 10 of
the contract.3 American Eagle did not file an answer
or any other pleading in response to the complaint. Subsequently, American
Eagle moved for a protective order preventing Architectural Drywall from
serving discovery until the trial court ruled on the motion to stay pending
arbitration.

Without
further discovery or pleadings from American Eagle, Architectural Drywall moved
for summary judgment based on the affidavit of Mark Eiland, the company’s
managing member. American Eagle responded by again filing a motion to stay the
proceedings, compel arbitration, and strike Architectural Drywall’s motion for
summary judgment. In response to an order to compel a joint status report,
American Eagle reiterated that its motion to compel arbitration remained
outstanding and explained that it would not file additional responses in order
to avoid waiving its right to arbitrate. Without ruling on the motion to compel
arbitration, the trial court entered final summary judgment in favor of
Architectural Drywall.

American
Eagle argues summary judgment was inappropriate because a genuine issue
remained as to whether arbitration was required, and the court had not ruled on
its outstanding motion to compel arbitration. See Fla. R. Civ. P.
1.510(c). In general, Florida public policy favors arbitration, Laizure v.
Avante at Leesburg, Inc.,
44 So. 3d 1254, 1257 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010), approved
by
109 So. 3d 752 (Fla. 2013), and parties with an agreement have the right
to move to compel arbitration. § 682.03, Fla. Stat. (2014). Deciding whether a
dispute is subject to arbitration raises three issues: (1) whether there is a
valid agreement between the parties to arbitrate; (2) whether the specific
issue is subject to arbitration; and (3) “whether the right to arbitration was
waived.” Laizure, 44 So. 3d at 1257. A party may waive its right to
arbitration by actively participating in the lawsuit or by acting in a way that
is inconsistent with the right to arbitrate. Morrell v. Wayne Frier
Manufactured Home Ctr.,
834 So. 2d 395, 397 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).

We
find that the trial court erred in failing to rule on the motion to compel
arbitration prior to entry of summary judgment. See Grillo v. Raymond James
& Assocs., Inc.,
524 So. 2d 1121, 1122 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (holding that
summary judgment was inappropriate without first considering outstanding motion
to compel arbitration). American Eagle has consistently insisted on its right
to compel arbitration, and nothing in the record establishes a waiver of that
right. Failing to rule on the motion to compel arbitration presented American
Eagle with a Hobson’s choice — either defend against summary judgment and
waive the right to arbitrate or accept final summary judgment against it. We
reverse the entry of summary judgment and remand for the trial court to rule on
American Eagle’s motion to compel arbitration.

REVERSED
and REMANDED. (TORPY, COHEN and WALLIS, JJ., concur.)

__________________

1Neither
Eiland nor Architectural Drywall filed a brief in this appeal.

2Architectural
Drywall further alleged that the parties had an oral agreement to extend the
rental of several pieces of equipment, at American Eagle’s expense, but that
American Eagle did not pay for the rental equipment.

3Article
10 provides, in relevant part:

DISPUTES AND ARBITRATION: Any controversy arising out of
this Agreement or a breach of it may be settled by arbitration under the rules
of the American Arbitration Association applicable to the construction industry
at CONTRACTOR’S option.om of Form

 

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982