Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contracttortarbitrationnegligenceappealtrialmotionarbitration clause
contractarbitrationtrialmotionarbitration clause

Related Cases

Whitworth v. Bynum, 699 S.W.2d 194
View Case »
Fairfax Hosp. System, Inc. v. Nevitt, 249 Va. 591, 457 S.E.2d 10
View Case »
Gonzalez v. Johnson, 581 S.W.3d 529
View Case »
Quilez-Velar v. Ox Bodies, Inc., 823 F.3d 712
View Case »
Moody v. Delta Western, Inc., 38 P.3d 1139
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

STV One Nineteen Senior Living, LLC v. Boyd, 258 So.3d 322

Facts

Dixie Boyd, represented by her agent Mary Alice Boyd–Kline, entered into a residency agreement with STV One Nineteen Senior Living, LLC on December 26, 2013. The agreement included an arbitration clause that required disputes related to the agreement to be settled by arbitration. After STV filed a collection action for unpaid rent, Boyd counterclaimed for negligence and other torts, alleging that she was injured due to STV's failure to supervise residents properly. STV moved to compel arbitration, but the trial court denied the motion, leading to this appeal.

Dixie Boyd, represented by her agent Mary Alice Boyd–Kline, entered into a residency agreement with STV One Nineteen Senior Living, LLC on December 26, 2013.

Issue

Whether the trial court erred in denying STV's motion to compel arbitration of Boyd's counterclaims based on the arbitration clause in the residency agreement.

Whether the trial court erred in denying STV's motion to compel arbitration of Boyd's counterclaims based on the arbitration clause in the residency agreement.

Rule

The party seeking to compel arbitration must prove the existence of a contract calling for arbitration and that the contract involves interstate commerce. The interpretation of arbitration provisions is guided by the intent of the parties, and any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration.

The party seeking to compel arbitration must prove the existence of a contract calling for arbitration and that the contract involves interstate commerce.

Analysis

The court found that STV met its initial burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement that involved interstate commerce. The arbitration clause was deemed broad enough to encompass Boyd's tort claims, as they arose out of or related to the residency agreement. The court emphasized that attempts to avoid arbitration by framing claims in tort rather than contract would not succeed if the claims were indeed related to the agreement.

The court found that STV met its initial burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement that involved interstate commerce.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's order denying STV's motion to compel arbitration and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's order denying STV's motion to compel arbitration and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Who won?

STV One Nineteen Senior Living, LLC prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court found that the arbitration clause in the residency agreement was applicable to Boyd's counterclaims.

STV One Nineteen Senior Living, LLC prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court found that the arbitration clause in the residency agreement was applicable to Boyd's counterclaims.

You must be