TANNING RESEARCH LABORATORIES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
HAWAIIAN TROPIC PTY. LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION), AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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.
Tanning Research Laboratories challenged an arbitration award denying it prevailing party attorney's fees under a license agreement's fee-shifting provision. The trial court vacated the fee portion of the award, but the appellate court reversed, holding that an arbitrator's application of law differing from how a court would apply it does not constitute grounds for vacatur under Florida's International Arbitration Act.
An arbitration award cannot be vacated merely because the arbitrators applied the law differently than a court would have applied it. The arbitrators' refusal to award prevailing party attorney's fees, even if contrary to how a trial court might have decided the same issue, does not violate Florida public policy and does not constitute grounds for vacatur under section 684.25, Florida Statutes.
[1] An arbitration award shall not be vacated unless the award was obtained by corruption, fraud, or undue influence, or is contrary to the public policy of the United States…
[2] An arbitrator's refusal to award prevailing party attorney's fees, even if a court might have awarded them under similar circumstances, is not a violation of Florida publ…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Section 684.25, Florida Statutes, provides that an arbitration award shall not be vacated (insofar as is important to this ease) unless the "award was obtained by corruption, fraud, or undue influence or is contrary to the public policy of the United States or of this state."”
Establishes the statutory standard for vacating arbitration awards under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTanning Research Laboratories and Hawaiian Tropic Proprietary, Ltd. submitted a dispute to arbitration pursuant to their license agreement, which cont…
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 Arbitration Award Vacation cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, Judge.
A dispute arose concerning attorney’s fees (among other issues) between Tanning Research Laboratories, Inc. (Tanning) and Hawaiian Tropic Proprietary, Ltd. (Tropic) and, pursuant to their license agreement, the matter was submitted to arbitration. The license agreement contained a prevailing party attorney’s fee provision.
The parties agree that the resolution of this dispute is covered by the Florida International Arbitration Act, chapter 684, Florida Statutes.
The arbitration proceedings resulted in a determination that a debt owed to Tanning was time-barred and that entitlement to damages sought by Tropic was not properly established. The arbitrators found each party should pay their own attorney’s fees.
Both parties agreed that the trial court should confirm the arbitration award insofar as the debt and damages were concerned, but Tropic urged the court to reject that portion of the award that failed to award attorney’s fees to Tropic as the prevailing party. The trial court agreed and vacated that portion of the arbitration award. We reverse. Section 684.25, Florida Statutes, provides that an arbitration award shall not be vacated (insofar as is important to this ease) unless the “award was obtained by corruption, fraud, or undue influence or is contrary to the public policy of the United States or of this state.” Section 684.25(3).
Tropic attempts to bring this case within the statute by urging that the arbitrators’ refusal to award prevailing party attorney’s fees is contrary to Florida public policy. While it is possible that under existing Florida law a trial court would have found Tropic the prevailing party and awarded it attorney’s fees, this was an action voluntarily submitted to arbitration. This result is not a violation of our public policy. It is, at most, an application of the law contrary to how a court, under similar facts and issues, might have applied it.
We are admonished to confirm or vacate such arbitration awards “without regard to the law of the place of arbitration, the law governing the award, or whether a court of law or equity would apply the law or deci-sional principles applied by the arbitral tribunal or would grant the relief provided for in the award.” Section 628.24(1), Florida Statutes.
We find no lawful basis not to confirm the arbitration award in total, and reverse and remand for that purpose.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DAUKSCH and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.