C.C. Borden Construction, Inc. v. Walding Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

C.C. Borden Construction, Inc. v. Walding Co.

94 So. 3d 725, 2012 WL 3569714, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 13845

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 21, 2012

DocketNo. 1D12-1744

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 94 So. 3d 725 (C.C. Borden Construction, Inc. v. Walding Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

C.C. Borden Construction, Inc. v. Walding Co., 94 So. 3d 725, 2012 WL 3569714, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 13845 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, C.C. Borden Construction Inc. (Borden) and Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland (Fidelity), seek reversal of a non-final order that denied their motion to compel arbitration pursuant to Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv), Fla. R.App. P. We agree with the trial court that the arbitration provisions of the subject contract are ambiguously worded, but resolve any doubt concerning the scope of the provisions in favor of arbitration and to give harmonious effect to all the terms. See City of Homestead v. Johnson, 760 So.2d 80, 84 (Fla.2000); Auchter Co. v. Zagloul, 949 So.2d 1189, 1191 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). If all portions of the claims and dispute resolution paragraph of the subject contract are read in harmony, the necessary conclusion is that the instant dispute is subject to the arbitration provision.

We, therefore, affirm the non-final order to the extent the trial court found the arbitration provisions ambiguous, reverse in part to the extent the trial court construed the contract against the drafter rather than to give harmonious effect to all the terms, and remand for entry of an order granting appellants’ motion to compel arbitration.

WOLF, ROWE, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, C.C. Borden Construction Inc. (Borden) and Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland (Fidelity), seek reversal of a non-final order that denied their motion to compel arbitration pursuant to Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv), Fla. R.App. P. We agree with the trial court that the arbitration provisions of the subject contract are ambiguously worded, but resolve any doubt concerning the scope of the provisions in favor of arbitration and to give harmonious effect to all the terms. See City of Homestead v. Johnson, 760 So.2d 80, 84 (Fla.2000); Auchter Co. v. Zagloul, 949 So.2d 1189, 1191 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). If all portions of the claims and dispute resolution paragraph of the subject contract are read in harmony, the necessary conclusion is that the instant dispute is subject to the arbitration provision.

We, therefore, affirm the non-final order to the extent the trial court found the arbitration provisions ambiguous, reverse in part to the extent the trial court construed the contract against the drafter rather than to give harmonious effect to all the terms, and remand for entry of an order granting appellants’ motion to compel arbitration.

WOLF, ROWE, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 So. 3d 725, 2012 WL 3569714, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 13845, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cc-borden-construction-inc-v-walding-co-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack