STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, APPELLANT,
v.
MAXIMUS, INC., A FOREIGN 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.
Florida appellate court granted certiorari and reversed the trial court's denial of HRS's motion to dismiss a breach of contract claim, holding that an identical dispute resolution clause controlled the resolution of contract disputes.
A dispute resolution clause in a contract governs the manner in which all disputes relating to the performance and administration of the contract must be resolved, and a breach of contract claim must be dismissed when such a clause exists.
[1] A dispute resolution clause in a contract requiring resolution of disputes through specified procedures bars a party from pursuing breach of contract claims in court with…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHRS and Maximus, Inc. entered into a contract containing a dispute resolution clause. Maximus filed an amended complaint in circuit court seeking reli…
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 Dispute Resolution Clause cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) seeks certiorari review of an order denying its motion to dismiss an amended complaint filed in circuit court by Maximus, Inc. Count I of the amended complaint seeks relief and damages against HRS based upon an alleged breach of contract. HRS moved to dismiss Count I of the amended complaint on the grounds that a dispute resolution clause in the contract between the parties governed the manner in which all disputes relating to the performance and administration of the contract are to be resolved. We conclude that the trial court erred in denying HRS’ motion and grant the petition for writ of certiorari.
The dispute resolution clause in this case is identical to the dispute resolution clause at issue in State, Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Serv. v. E.D.S. Fed. Corp., 631 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). This case is controlled by State, Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Serv. v. E.D.S. Fed. Corp. Therefore, based on that decision, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari, quash the order of the circuit court and remand with directions to the circuit court to grant HRS’ motion to dismiss Count I of the amended complaint.
SMITH, ALLEN and DAVIS, JJ., concur.