Seifert test in Florida

2011P'ship, 952 So.2d 1225 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (reversing the trial court’s ruling compelling arbitration and instead holding that a limitations of remedies provision in a nursing home contract violates public policy and is void); Alterra Healthcare Corp. v. Estate of Linton, 953 So.2d 574, 578 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) ("The issue of whether the provision violated public policy goes to the first Seifert inquiry: whether there was a valid agreement to arbitrate.

2011See, e.g., Hanson, 953 So.2d 773 (affirming the trial court’s ruling that the arbitration agreement conflicted with the Florida Nursing Home Residents Act and was unenforceable); Fletcher, 952 So.2d 1225 (reversing the trial court’s ruling compelling arbitration and instead holding that a limitations of remedies provision in a nursing home contract violates public policy and is void); Linton, 953 So.2d at 578 ("The issue of whether the provision violated public policy goes to the first Seifert inquiry: whether there was a valid agreement to arbitrate.

2011This is a question for the trial court.”); Alterra Healthcare Corp. v. Bryant, 937 So.2d 263, 267 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (”[T]he trial court properly considered whether the arbitration and limitation of liability provisions were valid.”); SA-PG-Ocala, LLC v. Stokes, 935 So.2d 1242, 1243 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) ("It is the court’s obligation, in deciding a motion to compel arbitration, to determine whether a valid written agreement to arbitrate exists.”); Lacey v. Healthcare & Retirement Corp. of Am., 918 So.2d 333 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (reversing the trial court’s ruling compelling arbitration and inst

2011This is a question for the trial court."): Alterra Healthcare Corp. v. Bryant, 937 So.2d 263, 267 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) ("[T]he trial court properly considered whether the arbitration and limitation of liability provisions were valid.”); Stokes, 935 So.2d at 1243 ("It is the court's obligation, in deciding a motion to compel arbitration, to determine whether a valid written agreement to arbitrate exists."); Lacey, 918 So.2d 333 (reversing the trial court's ruling compelling arbitration and instead holding that a limitations of remedies provision in a nursing home contract violates public policy

2011This is a question for the trial court.”); Alterra Healthcare Corp. v. Bryant, 937 So.2d 263, 267 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (”[T]he trial court properly considered whether the arbitration and limitation of liability provisions were valid.”); SA-PG-Ocala, LLC v. Stokes, 935 So.2d 1242, 1243 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) ("It is the court’s obligation, in deciding a motion to compel arbitration, to determine whether a valid written agreement to arbitrate exists.”); Lacey v. Healthcare & Retirement Corp. of Am., 918 So.2d 333 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (reversing the trial court’s ruling compelling arbitration and inst

2011This is a question for the trial court."): Alterra Healthcare Corp. v. Bryant, 937 So.2d 263, 267 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) ("[T]he trial court properly considered whether the arbitration and limitation of liability provisions were valid.”); Stokes, 935 So.2d at 1243 ("It is the court's obligation, in deciding a motion to compel arbitration, to determine whether a valid written agreement to arbitrate exists."); Lacey, 918 So.2d 333 (reversing the trial court's ruling compelling arbitration and instead holding that a limitations of remedies provision in a nursing home contract violates public policy

2016It emphasized that portion of the Seifert decision stating that to satisfy the second prong, “there must exist a significant relationship between the claim and the agreement containing the arbitration clause.” Id, at 972 (citing Seifert, 750 So.2d at 637-38 ).

2016It emphasized that portion of the Seifert decision stating that to satisfy the second prong, “there must exist a significant relationship between the claim and the agreement containing the arbitration clause.” Id, at 972 (citing Seifert, 750 So.2d at 637-38 ).

2016See also Citigroup, Inc. v. Boles, 914 So.2d 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (citing Seifert, and holding that the arbitration clause between the parties did not require arbitration because “the complaint did not involve or refer to the agreement, and the agreement is not related in any way to the allegedly tortious investment advice”).

2016See also Citigroup, Inc. v. Boles, 914 So.2d 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (citing Seifert, and holding that the arbitration clause between the parties did not require arbitration because “the complaint did not involve or refer to the agreement, and the agreement is not related in any way to the allegedly tortious investment advice”).

2016Accord Jackson v. Shakespeare Found., Inc., 108 So.3d 587, 593 (Fla.2013). -Although resolution of the issue before us primarily rests on the first prong of the Seifert test—whether a valid written agreement to arbitrate was shown to exist—we find it compelling that the Third District held that under the terms of an earlier agreement—separate and apart from the later agreement—there was no intent by the parties to arbitrate disputes under the earlier agreement.

2016Accord Jackson v. Shakespeare Found., Inc., 108 So.3d 587, 593 (Fla.2013). -Although resolution of the issue before us primarily rests on the first prong of the Seifert test—whether a valid written agreement to arbitrate was shown to exist—we find it compelling that the Third District held that under the terms of an earlier agreement—separate and apart from the later agreement—there was no intent by the parties to arbitrate disputes under the earlier agreement.

2014This court in Zephyr Haven Health & Rehab Center, Inc. v. Hardin, 122 So.3d 916, 920 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013), 2 stated: To succeed in claiming that a contractual provision is unconscionable, a party must demonstrate both procedural and substantive unconscionability.

2014This court in Zephyr Haven Health & Rehab Center, Inc. v. Hardin, 122 So.3d 916, 920 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013), 2 stated: To succeed in claiming that a contractual provision is unconscionable, a party must demonstrate both procedural and substantive unconscionability.

2011See, e.g., Hanson, 953 So.2d 773 (affirming the trial court’s ruling that the arbitration agreement conflicted with the Florida Nursing Home Residents Act and was unenforceable); Fletcher, 952 So.2d 1225 (reversing the trial court’s ruling compelling arbitration and instead holding that a limitations of remedies provision in a nursing home contract violates public policy and is void); Linton, 953 So.2d at 578 ("The issue of whether the provision violated public policy goes to the first Seifert inquiry: whether there was a valid agreement to arbitrate.

2009See Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. v. Saldukas, 896 So.2d 707 (Fla.2005)(holding an arbitration right must be safeguarded by a party who seeks to rely upon that right, and the party must not act inconsistently with the right).

2009See Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. v. Saldukas, 896 So.2d 707 (Fla.2005)(holding an arbitration right must be safeguarded by a party who seeks to rely upon that right, and the party must not act inconsistently with the right).

2007In Piercy v. School Board of Washington County, this court distinguished between procedural issues which trial courts properly reserve for arbitrators—the timeliness of arbitration demands included—and the threshold issue of waiver, which the court itself should decide. 576 So.2d 806, 808 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) ("A trial court may find waiver to have occurred if, for instance, the party seeking arbitration is actively participating in a lawsuit or taking action inconsistent with the right to arbitration.").

2007Co. v. Hogen, 734 So.2d 574, 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) ("[W]e reaffirm our long standing position that the question of whether arbitration has been waived is one for the trial court to determine."); cf. Global Travel Mktg., Inc. v. Shea, 908 So.2d 392, 398 (Fla.2005) (applying Seifert analysis to review order on motion to compel arbitration based On contract provision, rather than statute mandating arbitration).

2007Co. v. Hogen, 734 So.2d 574, 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) ("[W]e reaffirm our long standing position that the question of whether arbitration has been waived is one for the trial court to determine."); cf. Global Travel Mktg., Inc. v. Shea, 908 So.2d 392, 398 (Fla.2005) (applying Seifert analysis to review order on motion to compel arbitration based On contract provision, rather than statute mandating arbitration).

2004See Hirshenson v. Spaccio, 800 So.2d 670 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

2004See Hirshenson v. Spaccio, 800 So.2d 670 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).