|
A Florida Appellate Court held that a claim for tortious interference is subject to arbitration because a nexus existed between the dispute and the arbitration agreement.
In Coventry First LLC v. Marmorstein, No. 4D06-2139, 2006 WL 3733206 (Fla. Ct. App. Dec. 20, 2006), Warren Marmorstein, a CPA and financial advisor, and Coventry had a contract where Marmorstein would submit to Coventry the sale of life insurance policies from the existing owners of the policies. The contract was not exclusive on either side, but Marmorstein was required to submit all policies to Coventry regardless of whether he submitted them to other companies.
Marmorstein claimed to have a contract with the Wallachs to sell their life insurance policy. He had found another purchaser for the policy. Coventry purchased the policy from the Wallachs without Marmorstein's involvement. Marmorstein brought suit against both Coventry and the Wallachs, claiming each had tortiously interfered with the contract. The agreement between Coventry and Marmorstein contained an arbitration agreement. Coventry moved to compel arbitration.
The Court agreed with Coventry that the dispute must be arbitrated. See Seifert v. United States Home Corp., 750 So.2d 633 (Fla. 1999). A nexus existed between the dispute and the arbitration agreement. Coventry first became aware that the Wallach's policy was for sale through Marmorstein. Additionally, Coventry argued "that it had a right, under the contract, to purchase the policy without Marmorstein's involvement."
Further, in this case, unlike in Seifert, the injury was for payment Marmorstein would have normally received through his relationship with Coventry, rather than personal injuries independent of the contract. The Court held that the claim for tortious interference must be arbitrated.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|