|
Reversing a trial court’s ruling granting a motion to compel arbitration, a Florida appellate court held that a provision requiring a party to submit disputes to arbitration contained a condition precedent that must therefore be satisfied in order for a court to compel arbitration.
In Hubbard Const. Co. v. Jacobs Civil, Inc., No. 5D06-3640, 2007 WL 2962593 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Oct. 12, 2007), Hubbard Construction Company (HCC) hired Jacobs Civil (JCI) to provide construction and design services for a highway project. A dispute arose between the parties concerning amounts due under the contract. JCI alleged that HCC owed more than $600,000 while HCC asserted JCI owed a higher sum due to its defective performance.
JCI moved to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement between the parties. HCC responded by asserting JCI’s claim was not subject to arbitration, as the arbitration agreement sets forth a 20-day time limit to exercise the option to arbitrate and sought a declaratory judgment stating JCI’s claim was not arbitrable. The trial court granted the motion holding that the arbitrator must decide whether the claim was time barred. HCC appealed.
The Court held the dispute was not arbitrable, as JCI failed to comply with the 20-day condition precedent to arbitration. The contract’s language expressly provided that JCI had twenty days to request arbitration. JCI’s arbitration request was untimely and therefore it had no right to mandate arbitration. Finally, the Court rejected JCI’s argument that the timelessness question was for the arbitrator to resolve. The arbitrator lacked the power to determine arbitrability under the contract because JCI failed to meet the 20-day requirement needed to vest the arbitrator with authority to hear the dispute.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|