Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 682.02 (2025)
Arbitration agreements made valid, irrevocable, and enforceable; scope.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
682.02 Arbitration agreements made valid, irrevocable, and enforceable; scope.—
(1) An agreement contained in a record to submit to arbitration any existing or subsequent controversy arising between the parties to the agreement is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable except upon a ground that exists at law or in equity for the revocation of a contract.
(2) The court shall decide whether an agreement to arbitrate exists or a controversy is subject to an agreement to arbitrate.
(3) An arbitrator shall decide whether a condition precedent to arbitrability has been fulfilled and whether a contract containing a valid agreement to arbitrate is enforceable.
(4) If a party to a judicial proceeding challenges the existence of, or claims that a controversy is not subject to, an agreement to arbitrate, the arbitration proceeding may continue pending final resolution of the issue by the court, unless the court otherwise orders.
(5) This section also applies to written interlocal agreements under ss. 163.01 and 373.713 in which two or more parties agree to submit to arbitration any controversy between them concerning water use permit applications and other matters, regardless of whether or not the water management district with jurisdiction over the subject application is a party to the interlocal agreement or a participant in the arbitration.
History.—s. 1, ch. 57-402; s. 12, ch. 67-254; s. 3, ch. 98-402; s. 26, ch. 2010-205; s. 7, ch. 2013-232.
Note.—Former s. 57.11.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 93
cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1969–2026 · leading case: Blankfeld v. Richmond Health Care, Inc., 902 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).
Blankfeld v. Richmond Health Care, Inc., 902 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). “" § 682.02, Fla. Stat. (2004). Our supreme court has even said that arbitration is a "favored" means of dispute resolution.”
Roe v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 533 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 1988). “Section 682.02, Florida Statutes (1987), provides in pertinent part that an agreement to arbitrate shall be valid, enforceable, and irrevocable without regard to the justiciable character of the controversy; provided that this act shall not apply to any such agreement or…”
Merrill Lynch Pierce, Etc. v. Melamed, 405 So. 2d 790 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981). “[2] See § 682.02, Fla. Stat. (1979); Damora v. Stresscon International, Inc.”
Avid Eng'g, Inc. v. Orlando Marketplace Ltd., 809 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). “Orlando Marketplace argues that the arbitration provision fails to comply with section 682.02, Florida Statutes (1999), because both parties did not agree to arbitrate.”
Seifert v. US Home Corp., 750 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1999). “We do not think that the legislature in enacting section 682.02, Florida Statutes (1999), nor the courts in adopting any general policy favoring arbitration, intended such a result.”
Post Tensioned Eng'g. Corp. v. Fairways Plaza Assoc., 412 So. 2d 871 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982). “Second, though it is true that if the arbitration clause of the contract calls for arbitration to take place in a foreign jurisdiction, Florida courts cannot, over objection, compel arbitration, § 682.”
O'Keefe Architects v. Ced Const. Partners, 944 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 2006). “" § 682.02, Fla. Stat. (2005) (emphasis supplied).”
Ibis Lakes Homeowners Ass'n v. Ibis Isle Homeowners Ass'n, 102 So. 3d 722 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). “” § 682.02, Fla. Stat. (2011). Such arbitration provisions “shall be valid, enforceable, and irrevocable without regard to the justiciable character of the controversy.”
Elbadramany v. Stanley, 490 So. 2d 964 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986). “Stanley's position ignores the opening paragraph of Article VI(k), supra, which requires that disputes between Realtor members shall be settled through arbitration.”
RBF Mgmt. Co. v. Sunshine Towers Apt. Residences Ass'n, Inc., 352 So. 2d 561 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977). “03, Florida Statutes and notwithstanding the provisions of Section 682.02, Florida Statutes, which provides, inter alia, that an agreement or provision in a contract requiring arbitration shall be valid, enforceable, and irrevocable without regard to the justiciable character of…”
Default Proof Credit Card Sys., Inc. v. Friedland, 992 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). “Even though the Agreement's choice of law provision is valid and enforceable, the next issue is whether Florida courts have the authority to enforce the arbitration provision of the Agreement where the provision states that any controversy arising out of the Agreement shall be…”
Ronbeck Const. Co., Inc. v. Savanna Club Corp., 592 So. 2d 344 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992). “Section 682.02, Florida Statutes (1989), provides: Two or more parties may agree in writing to submit to arbitration any controversy existing between them at the time of the agreement, or they may include in a written contract a provision for the settlement by arbitration of any…”
— 682.02(1) — 2 cases
Johan F. Hagstrom v. Co.fe.me. USA Marine Exhaust, LLC, Etc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2021).
Miami Dolphins, Ltd., & South Florida Stadium LLC v. Cameron Engwiller (Fla. 3d DCA 2025).
— 682.02(2) — 6 cases
Sherwood v. Slazinski, 162 So. 3d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015).
United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Am. Walks at Port St. Lucie, LLC (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2024).
Patterson & Walter v. Clarke (Fla. 2d DCA 2024).
Herbert Jean v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, Etc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2021).
Fallang Fam. Ltd. P'ship v. Privcap Companies LLC (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2021).
— 682.02(3) — 4 cases
Sherwood v. Slazinski, 162 So. 3d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015).
Patterson & Walter v. Clarke (Fla. 2d DCA 2024).
City of West Palm Beach v. Kevin Harrell (Fla. 4th DCA 2025).
Harlow v. Tier 1 Pest Solutions, LLC (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2026).
— 682.02(4) — 1 case
Sherwood v. Slazinski, 162 So. 3d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.