Terminix Intern. Co., L.P. v. Michaels

• Decision Date: 07 February 1996
• Docket Number: No. 95-2041,95-2041
• Citation: Terminix Intern. Co., L.P. v. Michaels, 668 So.2d 1013 (Fla. App. 1996)
• Parties: 21 Fla. L. Weekly D349 TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL COMPANY, L.P., Appellant, v. Horst MICHAELS and Renate Michaels, individually and as the Mother and Father and next best friend of Eric Michaels, a minor, Nozzle Nolen, Inc., a Florida corporation, Marclain Marrero, Choice Real Estate Inc., a Florida corporation, Gimelstob Realty, Inc., a Florida corporation, Universal Land Title, Inc., a Florida corporation, and Treasure Coast Mortgage Corporation, a Florida corporation, Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 1013

668 So.2d 1013

21 Fla. L. Weekly D349

TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL COMPANY, L.P., Appellant, v.Horst MICHAELS and Renate Michaels, individually and as the Mother and Father and next best friend of Eric Michaels, a minor, Nozzle Nolen, Inc., a Florida corporation, Marclain Marrero, Choice Real Estate Inc., a Florida corporation, Gimelstob Realty, Inc., a Florida corporation, Universal Land Title, Inc., a Florida corporation, and Treasure Coast Mortgage Corporation, a Florida corporation, Appellees.

No. 95-2041.

District Court of Appeal of Florida Fourth District.

Feb. 7, 1996.

Rehearing and Certification Denied March 19, 1996.

Appeal of a non-final order from the Circuit Court for St. Lucie County; Scott M. Kenney, Judge.

James N. Nicholas of James N. Nicholas, P.A., Melbourne, for appellant.

Robert J. Watson of Frierson & Watson, P.A., Stuart, for appellees.

WARNER, Judge.

The appellant challenges the trial court's order denying its motion to compel arbitration.Because we find that the arbitration agreement does not cover the personal injury claims asserted, we affirm the trial court.

Horst and Renate Michaels("the Michaels") became the assignees of a termite protection plan when they purchased their home in 1990.The assigned plan contained an arbitration clause which states in pertinent part as follows:

The Purchaser and Terminix agree that any controversy or claim between them arising out of or relating to the interpretation, performance, or breach of any provision of this agreement shall be settled exclusively by arbitration.

Pursuant to this contract, Terminix treated the house on several occasions with chemical pesticides.

In 1992, the Michaels sued Terminix alleging negligence and strict liability in connection with its ultrahazardous activity of applying dangerous chemicals on the property both before and after their ownership of the property.The Michaels alleged damages consisting of the loss of the house in a foreclosure action, fraud, and tangible and intangible personal injuries as a result of pesticide poisoning.

Shortly after suit was filed, Terminix moved to compel arbitration in compliance with the contract.The trial court denied the motion, believing that arbitration would dispense with the Michaels' right to trial by jury where it was not clear that personal injuries were subject to arbitration.

We agree that the trial court's order denying arbitration should be affirmed.We adopt the position of the Arizona Court of Appeals in Dusold v. Porta-John Corp., 167 Ariz. 358, 807 P.2d 526(Ct.App.1990):

The question whether a tort claim arising between parties who have a contractual relationship requiring that a claim "arising out of or relating to" an agreement or a breach of an agreement be subjected to arbitration is not without difficulty.

....

[T]he better-reasoned cases start with the premise that, in order for the dispute to be characterized as arising out of or related to the subject matter of the contract, and thus subject to arbitration, it must, at the very least, raise some issue the resolution of which requires a reference to or construction of some portion of the contract itself.Id.[Old Dutch Farms, Inc. v. Milk Drivers, 359 F.2d 598, 601(2nd Cir.1966) ].The relationship between the dispute and the contract is not satisfied simply because the dispute would not have arisen absent the existence of a contract between the parties.Armada Coal Export, Inc. v. Interbulk, Ltd., 726 F.2d 1566(11th Cir.1984).See alsoMcMahon v. RMS Electronics, Inc., 618 F.Supp. 189(S.D.N.Y.1985)(where tort claim does not require an interpretation of the underlying contract, no arbitration of that claim is required);Popper [v. Monroe ], 673 F.Supp. [1228] at 1228[S.D.N.Y.1987](if defamatory statements have no material relationship to contractual relationship, no arbitration required).If such a connection to the contract is not present, tort claims between the parties could not reasonably be intended to have been subject to arbitration within the meaning of an arbitration clause requiring this method of resolution only for claims "arising out of or related to" the contract.

If the contract places the parties in a unique relationship that creates new duties not otherwise imposed by law, then a dispute regarding a breach of a contractually-imposed duty is one that arises from the contract.Barmat [v. John and Jane Doe Partners A-D ], 155 Ariz. at 523, 747 P.2d [1218] at 1222[1989].Analogously, such a claim would be one arising from the contract terms and therefore subject to arbitration where the contract required it.If, on the other hand, the duty alleged to be breached is one imposed by law in recognition of public policy and is generally owed to others besides the contracting parties, then a dispute regarding such a breach is not one arising from the contract, but sounds in tort.Id.Therefore, a contractually-imposed arbitration requirement ... would not apply to such a claim.

Id.167 Ariz. at 361-63, 807 P.2d at 529-31.

In the instant case, the appellees alleged that their injuries occurred because of the appellant's failure to warn them of the dangerous nature of the chemicals which it used.The appellees alleged both negligence and strict liability based on the ultrahazardous nature of the chemicals.Therefore, the duty owed was a general duty imposed on the producer and distributor of hazardous chemicals, not one imposed by contract.

The dissent cites Bachus & Stratton, Inc. v. Mann, 639 So.2d 35(Fla. 4th DCA1994), as requiring reversal.In that case, the employee agreed to arbitrate any dispute between her and her firm, including employment issues.Her claims of sexual harassment were directly linked to her employment and amounted to a claim of employment discrimination.Therefore, what was being arbitrated was the employment relationship between the parties.All of her allegations related to her job...