|
In a dispute over a business relationship gone "awry," a federal court in Florida held that an interim arbitration agreement outlined in a letter separate from the parties' non-disclosure agreement was sufficiently broad to encompass all of the parties' disputes.
In NRP Group, Inc. v. Hydropress, LLC, No. 06-60593-CIV-MORENO, 2007 WL 201259 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 24, 2007), NRP Group, Inc. (NRP) and Hydropress, LLC engaged in a series of disputes over their soured business relationship. NRP brought suit for a variety of claims arising out of a non-disclosure agreement between the parties, and Hydropress moved to compel arbitration.
The purported arbitration agreement was in a separate letter, not in the non-disclosure agreement that formed the basis of NRP's claims. The Court held that the letter was an "interim agreement" to arbitrate any and all disputes between the parties, including disputes arising under the non-disclosure agreement.
The mere existence of a contract containing a broad arbitration provision does not necessarily require arbitration of disputes that arise under a separate contract that does not have an arbitration agreement. Klay v. All Defendants, 389 F.3d 1191, 1201 (11th Cir. 2004). However, NRP's amended complaint incorporated the interim letter agreement into each count, such that the separate agreements were significantly intertwined. Therefore, the Court found that all of NRP's claims were appropriate for arbitration.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|