TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
H & S FORMING OF SOUTH FLORIDA, INC., AND CITIBANK FLORIDA, N.A., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court erred in denying the appointment of successor arbitrators but was correct in denying summary judgment against the bank on the letter of credit.
[1] A trial court errs by denying a motion to appoint successor arbitrators when the original arbitrators failed to rule on a specific issue submitted to them.
[2] A party is not entitled to summary judgment on a letter of credit when the arbitrators have not yet ruled on the issue.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter an arbitration award between Turner and H&S, the trial court entered judgment but denied Turner's motion to appoint successor arbitrators to add…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Letter Of Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
GLICKSTEIN, Judge.
Turner Construction Company was the defendant, counterclaimant and cross-claimant in the trial court and is appellant here. H & S Forming of South Florida, Turner’s subcontractor, was the plaintiff and counterdefendant and is an appellee. The other appellee is Citibank Florida, N.A., the cross-defendant in the trial court.
Appellant’s motion for summary judgment against the bank on the letter of credit it had issued on H & S’s order for Turner’s benefit was denied; so all of the parties agreed to have the issues resolved by the American Arbitration Association.
Unfortunately, the three arbitrators only ruled on the dispute between Turner and H & S, and directed H & S to pay Turner $99,050, plus interest, although the parties agree that there was testimony before the arbitrators on this issue. The arbitrators’ award then said:
There is no ruling on the issue of the letter of credit regarding Respondent, CITIBANK FLORIDA, NA AS SUCCESSOR TO CARIBANK.
While the trial court entered final judgment in favor of Turner for the amount of award and attorneys’ fees, it denied Turner’s motion to appoint successor arbitrators at the time it entered final judgment without an expression as to its reasons for denying the motion.
We agree with appellant that it was error for the trial court not to appoint successor arbitrators, which procedure this court discussed in Air Conditioning Equip., Inc. v. Rogers, 551 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), and upon which procedure appellant relied in the trial court, abandoning its previous motion to have the trial court complete the arbitrators’ job. See § 682.04, Fla.Stat. (1987).
We disagree with appellant’s position that it was entitled to summary judgment against the bank on the letter of credit.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order which denied the appointment of successor arbitrators and remand with direction that successor arbitrators be appointed; and we affirm the trial court’s order denying summary judgment against the bank.
DOWNEY, J„ and WESSEL, JOHN D., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- AIR Conditioning Equip., Inc. v. Silas W. Rogers, 551 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)