Skip to main content

Arbitration Not Time Barred by Statute of Limitations Unless Contract Says So

In the case of RAYMOND JAMES FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. v. PHILLIPS, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D2479a (Fla. 2d DCA Nov. 16, 2011), the Second District Court of Appeals held that arbitration claims are not civil actions or proceedings for purposes of section 95.011, Florida Statutes (2005), and that as a result, Florida statutes of limitations are not applicable to arbitration where the arbitration agreement does not expressly provide for their application.

Facts of Case

Account Holders executed client agreements with Raymond James for investment purposes. Pursuant to the provisions of the client agreements, the Account Holders were required to submit any disputes with Raymond James to the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. ("NASD"), for arbitration. Section 10304, the applicable NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure, provides a time limit upon submissions for arbitration. It states in pertinent part:

"(a) No dispute, claim, or controversy shall be eligible for submission to arbitration under this Code where six (6) years have elapsed from the occurrence or event giving rise to the . . . claim.
. . . .
(b) This Rule shall not extend applicable statutes of limitations; nor shall the six-year time limit . . . apply to any claim that is directed to arbitration by the court."

The client agreement also provided:

"(d) Nothing in this agreement shall be deemed to limit or waive the application of any relevant state or federal statute of limitation, repose or other time bar. Any claim made by either party to this agreement which is time barred for any reason shall not be eligible for arbitration. The determination of whether any such claim was timely filed shall be by a court having jurisdiction, upon application by either party."

In November 2005, the Account Holders filed arbitration claims with NASD. The Account Holders' grievances were for claims of negligence; misconduct, including breaches of fiduciary duty; and state and federal securities violations. In response to the Account Holders' claims, Raymond James filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the Account Holders' claims were barred by the limitations periods in chapter 95, Florida Statutes (2005). The Account Holders then invoked the provision in the arbitration agreement which stated that timeliness issues would be decided by the court, and they filed an action in the circuit court of Collier County seeking a declaratory judgment. The Account Holders argued that Florida's statutes of limitations do not apply to arbitration proceedings. The circuit court agreed and issued a final declaratory judgment stating that Florida's statutes of limitations were not applicable to the Account Holders' arbitration claims as a matter of law.

Reasoning

The court reasoned that the provision of agreement that it will not “limit or waive the application of any relevant state or federal statute of limitations,” does not affirmatively incorporate Florida statutes of limitations into the agreement.  The court noted that because neither the actual language of the statute nor the dictionary definition include the term "arbitration", the meaning of the words “civil action” or “proceeding” do not convey a clear and definite meaning, and we must resort to the principles of statutory construction.

The court proceeded to review the statute in question and held that if the legislature had intended for the term “proceeding” to apply to arbitration, it could have defined “proceeding” to include an arbitration or it could have expressly included the word arbitration within section 95.011. The court noted that the Florida Arbitration Code was enacted in 1957, which is prior to the enactment of section 95.011. Thus, the legislature was aware of arbitration and could have expressly included the term if it intended for Florida's statutes of limitation to apply to arbitration. The court then found that absent a more specific reference to arbitrations in section 95.011, and without a clear indication of legislative intent otherwise or case law which interprets this issue, it is too much of a stretch to conclude that the legislature was motivated by a desire to extend our state's limitations periods to such “proceedings.”

Conclusion

In summary, the court found that Raymond James did not expressly include the Florida statutes of limitations in the contract in question. Since the contract is construed against the drafter and since the language of the statute does not state that it applies to arbitration, the court held that Florida's statutes of limitations do not apply to arbitrations where the arbitration agreement does not expressly provide for their application.

Nevertheless, the court certified the following question, citing "great public importance":

"DOES SECTION 95.011, FLORIDA STATUTES, APPLY TO ARBITRATION WHEN THE PARTIES HAVE NOT EXPRESSLY INCLUDED A PROVISION IN THEIR ARBITRATION AGREEMENT STATING THAT IT IS APPLICABLE?"

Thus, watch this space to see how the Florida Supreme Court chooses to rule on this issue.

If you are interested in receiving a complete copy of this decision or are interested in reaching me, please contact me at miamipandi@comcast.net.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

ReThink + ReUse Center "It's How We Roll" Fun Raiser -- Bowling Night -- October 16, 2014

As many of my readers may be aware, I am the Chair of the ReThink + ReUse Center, a non-for-profit educational and environmental Center in Miami educating children into rethinking reuseable materials for learning through play. The ReThink and ReUse Center’s Quality Play is Learning Program provides a series of educational and participatory workshops based on the philosophies of Reggio Emilia and Harvard's Project Zero Visible Thinking. The Children’s Trust is the major funder of this program, but the Center is required to continually fundraise for the balance its annual budget.   The Center is having a fun event you are invited to--the ReThink + Reuse Center’s “It’s How We Roll” bowling event on October 16, 2014 at Splitsville Luxury Lanes from 18:00 to 21:30 hours. My firm, Comcast and Waste Management are major sponsors for this event, but we could use a few more sponsors. If you are interested in sponsoring the event, please let me know by reaching me at mov@chalos
6 comments
Read more

Maritime Law--Florida's Arbitration Code Is Now Revised

Those of us that practice maritime law regularly must always be on the lookout for the contract that may contain an arbitration clause. Thus, any laws related to arbitration are important to those of us practicing in this sector.       The Florida legislature has revised the Florida Arbitration Code ("FAC") and named it the Revised Florida Arbitration Code (the " Revised Act"). Since 1967, the FAC had gone mostly unchanged. The Revised Act addresses concepts that were not addressed in the old law, such as the ability of arbitrators to issue provision remedies, challenges based on notice, consolidation of separate arbitration proceedings, required conflict disclosures by arbitrators, among other major changes. The Revised Act lays out a detailed framework for international arbitration conducted under Florida law and repeals sections of the FAC. The Revised Act spells out what experienced arbitrators knew the case law to be, but codifies it all in one pl
4 comments
Read more

Maritime Law--Lozman Case Revisited in Miami?

In Hoefling v. City of Miami , Case no.: 14-12482 (11th Cir. Jan. 25, 2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit revived almost all of Hoefling's claims. You ask, "Who is Hoefling?" Hoefling  lived on his sailboat Metis O moored off Dinner Key for nearly a decade—until the day he came home and it was gone. About three months earlier, an officer from the Miami Police Department's Marine Patrol Detail tagged Hoefling's vessel for lacking a sanitary device and a working anchor light. He had a deal to use the facilities at the nearby marina but quickly went out and reportedly bought what he needed to comply. Three months later while he was on a business trip, the City of Miami seized and destroyed his boat and all his belongings. As a result, he was homeless. He sued under § 1983, maritime law, and state law. He stated a claim under the Fourth Amendment for seizure and destruction without notice or cause and a “taking.”    At the U.S. Distric
5 comments
Read more