Global Travel Marketing, Inc. v. Shea

Citation908 So.2d 392
Decision Date07 July 2005
Docket NumberNo. SC03-1704.,SC03-1704.
PartiesGLOBAL TRAVEL MARKETING, INC., Petitioner, v. Mark R. SHEA, etc., Respondent.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida

Greg Gaebe of Gaebe, Mullen, Antonelli, Esco and Dimatteo, Coral Gables, FL, Edward S. Polk of Conroy, Simberg, Gannon, Krevans and Abel, P.A., Hollywood, FL and Rodney E. Gould and Brad A. Compston of Rubin, Hay and Gould, P.C., Framingham, MA, for Petitioner.

Philip M. Burlington of Caruso and Burlington, P.A., West Palm Beach, FL, Edward M. Ricci and Scott C. Murry of Ricci-Leopold, West Palm Beach, FL, for Respondent.

Louise H. McMurray and Douglas M. McIntosh of McIntosh, Sawran, Peltz. Cartaya and Petruccelli, P.A., Miami, FL, on behalf of the Florida Defense Lawyers Association and The United States Tour Operators Association as Amici Curiae.

Louise McMurray of Mc McIntosh, Sawran, Peltz. Cartaya and Petruccelli, P.A., Miami, FL, and Alexander Anolik of San Francisco, CA, on behalf of the Association of Retail Travel Agents' and the Outside Sales Support Network as Amici Curiae.

Michelle Hankey, William Booth, Maxine Williams and Barbara B. Briggs, West Palm Beach, FL, on behalf of Legal Aid Society of Palm Beach County as Amicus Curiae.

Steven M. Goldsmith, Boca Raton, FL and Paul D. Jess, General Counsel, Tallahassee, FL, On behalf of The Academy of Florida Trail Lawyers as Amicus Curiae.

PARIENTE, C.J.

We have for review a decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in which the court certified a question of great public importance:

Whether a parent's agreement in a commercial travel contract to binding arbitration on behalf of a minor child with respect to prospective tort claims arising in the course of such travel is enforceable as to the minor.

Shea v. Global Travel Mktg., Inc., 870 So.2d 20, 26 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. As phrased by the Fourth District, the issue is narrow, touching only upon binding arbitration and not on any broader contractual waiver of a tort claim brought on behalf of a minor. For the reasons that follow, we determine that the arbitration provision in this commercial travel contract is not unconscionable, in violation of any statutory prohibition, or void as against public policy. Because the mother in this case had authority to enter into this contract on behalf of her minor child, the arbitration provision is valid and enforceable. Accordingly, we answer this narrow question in the affirmative and quash the decision below.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This case arises from a lawsuit brought by Mark R. Shea (the father) over the tragic death of his eleven-year-old son, Mark Garrity Shea (Garrit), during an African safari that Garrit took with his mother, Molly Bruce Jacobs.1 Before the trip, Garrit's mother signed a travel contract for the African safari on behalf of herself and her son with Global Travel Marketing.2 The contract called for Global Travel to provide Jacobs and Garrit a twenty-five-day safari in Zimbabwe and Botswana at a cost of approximately $39,000. The travel contract contained provisions concerning travel documents, medical contingencies, and the travel company's refund and cancellation policy. The contract included an arbitration clause:

Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement, or the making, performance or interpretation thereof, shall be settled by binding arbitration in Fort Lauderdale, FL, in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association. . . .

Regarding Garrit, the contract specifically provided:

I, as parent or legal guardian of the below named minor, hereby give my permission for this child or legal ward to participate in the trip and further agree, individually and on behalf of my child or ward, to the terms of the above.

After Garrit's death, the father, who was named personal representative of his son's estate, brought suit on behalf of the estate and for both parents as survivors under Florida's wrongful death statute. The complaint alleged that Global Travel's failure to fulfill its duty to use reasonable care in operating the safari and warning of dangerous conditions caused his son's death. A jury trial was requested. Global Travel moved to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration of the father's claim. In response, the father argued that Jacobs, the mother, did not have legal authority to contract away Garrit's substantive rights through a release of liability and arbitration clauses. However, in a hearing on Global Travel's motion, counsel for the father acknowledged that the validity of the clause releasing Global Travel from liability was not then before the court, and would likely be an issue in the future. The trial court granted Global Travel's motion to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration, concluding that the arbitration provision bound Garrit's estate. The court did not determine whether the release of liability was enforceable.3 The Fourth District reversed. Although it acknowledged that doubt as to the scope of an agreement to arbitrate should be resolved in favor of arbitration, the court determined that "the issue, here, is not one of scope, but of formation—who may be bound by an agreement to arbitrate." Shea, 870 So.2d at 23. The court held:

Although we recognize that it is impractical for a parent to obtain a court order before entering into pre-injury contracts, we cannot accept the notion that parents may, carte blanche, waive the litigation rights of their children in the absence of circumstances supported by public policy. Circumstances in which a waiver would be supported by a recognized public policy include waivers in cases of obtaining medical care or insurance or for participation in commonplace child oriented community or school supported activities. We need not decide, here, what additional circumstances might support such a waiver; it is sufficient to state that commercial travel opportunities are not in that category.

Id. at 25. The Fourth District concluded that because the arbitration agreement was unenforceable as to the child on public policy grounds, the child's estate could not be bound to arbitrate tort claims arising from the safari. See id. at 26.

II. ANALYSIS

The issue in this case is the enforceability of an agreement by a parent on behalf of a minor child to arbitrate claims arising out of a commercial travel contract. Because the validity of the arbitration agreement is a question of law arising from undisputed facts, the standard of review is de novo. See D'Angelo v. Fitzmaurice, 863 So.2d 311, 314 (Fla.2003)

(stating that standard of review for pure questions of law is de novo, and no deference is given to the judgment of the lower courts).

Global Travel and the amici curiae supporting its position4 assert that the Fourth District decision contravenes the requirement in the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) that questions as to the enforcement of an arbitration agreement be resolved in favor of arbitration, and misapplies public policy by ignoring parents' authority to enter into contracts on behalf of their children. The father and the amici curiae supporting his position5 assert that the issue is one of state law not governed by the FAA, that the Fourth District correctly applied state law in holding that the mother's agreement to binding arbitration on behalf of her son is unenforceable, and that the public policy of protecting children's interests overcomes parents' right to raise their minor children and authority to enter into contracts on behalf of their minor children.

A. EFFECT OF FEDERAL LAW

Initially, we reject Global Travel's assertion that enforcement of the arbitration agreement is mandated by federal law. Although the Federal Arbitration Act, which applies to both federal and state court proceedings, reflects a strong federal policy in favor of enforcement of agreements to arbitrate, the FAA also provides that an arbitration agreement may be ruled unenforceable "upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract." 9 U.S.C. § 2 (2000). The United States Supreme Court has held that under this provision,

state law, whether of legislative or judicial origin, is applicable if that law arose to govern issues concerning the validity, revocability, and enforceability of contracts generally. A state-law principle that takes its meaning precisely from the fact that a contract to arbitrate is at issue does not comport with this requirement of § 2. A court may not, then, in assessing the rights of litigants to enforce an arbitration agreement, construe that agreement in a manner different from that in which it otherwise construes nonarbitration agreements under state law. Nor may a court rely on the uniqueness of an agreement to arbitrate as a basis for a state-law holding that enforcement would be unconscionable. . . .

Perry v. Thomas, 482 U.S. 483, 492 n. 9, 107 S.Ct. 2520, 96 L.Ed.2d 426 (1987) (citations omitted). In Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U.S. 681, 687, 116 S.Ct. 1652, 134 L.Ed.2d 902 (1996), the Court noted that generally applicable contract defenses under state law, such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability, may be applied to invalidate arbitration agreements without contravening section 2 of the FAA. Accord Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Petsch, 872 So.2d 259, 264 (Fla. 2d DCA),

review denied, 884 So.2d 23 (Fla.2004); Powertel, Inc. v. Bexley, 743 So.2d 570, 573-74 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).

The public policy of protecting children from waiver of their litigation rights, on which the Fourth District decision rests, is a generally applicable contract principle and is not peculiar to arbitration agreements. We have previously held that contract provisions unrelated to arbitration may be ruled unenforceable on public policy grounds. See Mazzoni Farms, Inc. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 761 So.2d 306, 311 (Fla.2000)

(holding that a choice-of-law...

To continue reading

Request your trial
72 cases
  • Woodman v. Kera, LLC
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • August 12, 2008
    ...agree that any dispute arising from the contract may be arbitrated rather than decided in a court of law." Global Travel Marketing, Inc. v. Shea, 908 So.2d 392, 401 (Fla., 2005). In these instances, the courts distinguish arbitration clauses from releases of liability: "[W]e note that the p......
  • Shotts v. OP Winter Haven, Inc.
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • April 17, 2012
    ...to determine “whether a valid written agreement to arbitrate exists.” Id. at 636. Later, this Court in Global Travel Marketing, Inc. v. Shea, 908 So.2d 392 (Fla.2005), explained the meaning of the term “valid” in this context: “No valid agreement exists if the arbitration clause is unenforc......
  • In re Directv Early Cancellation Litig.. This Document Relates To: All Actions., Case No. ML 09-2093 AG (ANx)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • September 7, 2010
    ...such provisions should be used as a shield to block a party's access to a judicial forum in every case." Global Travel Mktg., Inc. v. Shea, 908 So.2d 392, 397 (Fla.2005) (citation omitted). A contract is unconscionable under Florida law if it is both procedurally and substantively unconscio......
  • Pycsa Panama, S.A. v. Tensar Earth Technologies
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • April 16, 2008
    ...in this case. 35. A contract without consideration would also fail under the laws of Florida and Georgia. See Global Travel Mktg., Inc. v. Shea, 908 So.2d 392, 398 (Fla.2005) (stating that lack of consideration is a defense to contract formation); Hogan v. Supreme Camp of Am. Woodmen, 146 F......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Chapter § 5.04 TOUR OPERATORS, WHOLESALERS AND PUBLIC CHARTERS
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Travel Law
    • Invalid date
    ...in Botswana. He was sleeping alone in a tent at a campsite when he was dragged from his tent and mauled by hyenas."), rev'd and remanded 908 So. 2d 392 (Fla. Sup. 2005) ("Just as the mother in this case had the authority to enter into a contract for herself and her minor child to travel to ......
  • Chapter § 4.04 LIABILITY OF HOTELS AND RESORTS FOR COMMON TRAVEL PROBLEMS
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Travel Law
    • Invalid date
    ...plaintiff rendered paraplegic in flipping of vehicle during tour in Western Desert of Egypt). Florida: Shea v. Global Travel Marketing 908 So.2d 392 (Fla. Sup. 2008) (mother took eleven year old son on safari in Botswana and while the child was sleeping alone hyenas dragged him out his tent......
  • Chapter § 1.03 TRAVEL ABROAD, SUE AT HOME
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Travel Law
    • Invalid date
    ...else, and Missouri law will be applicable to any and all such litigation"). State Courts: Florida: Shea v. Global Travel Marketing, Inc., 908 So. 2d 392 (Fla. Sup. 2003) (estate of child tourist on safari killed by hyenas not bound by contract clause requiring arbitration of disputes in For......
  • Predispute agreements to arbitrate legal malpractice claims: skating on thin ice in Florida's ethical twilight zone?
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 82 No. 4, April 2008
    • April 1, 2008
    ...well as under federal law, the use of arbitration agreements is generally favored by the courts." Global Travel Marketing, Inc. v. Shea, 908 So.2d 392, 397 (Fla. 2005). See also id. at 398 ("Agreements to arbitrate are treated differently from statutes compelling arbitration. The difference......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT