ESTATE OF ROBERT F. REINSHAGEN, BY AND THROUGH DONALD E. REINSHAGEN, EXECUTOR DE SON TORT, APPELLANT,
v.
WRYP ALF, LLC, LEXINGTON PARK 466, LLC AND REBECCA S. KOPPENHAFER, 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 Estate of Robert F. Reinshagen appealed an order compelling arbitration of negligence claims against an assisted living facility. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that arbitration agreement provisions capping noneconomic damages and precluding punitive damages violated public policy and were not severable from the entire arbitration agreement.
The order compelling arbitration is reversed. Arbitration agreement provisions that cap noneconomic damages and preclude punitive damages are void as against public policy and constitute the financial heart of the agreement, making them inseverable despite a severability clause. The entire arbitration agreement is therefore invalidated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
[1] Arbitration agreements containing provisions that cap noneconomic damages and preclude punitive damages are void as against public policy.
[2] A severability clause in an arbitration agreement does not save the entire agreement when the offending clauses go to the very essence of the agreement.
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“because the offending clauses went to the very essence of the agreement, the entire agreement was invalidated, notwithstanding the severability clause”
Establishes that clauses constituting the financial heart of an arbitration agreement cannot be severed even with a severability clause present.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert F. Reinshagen was a resident of an assisted living facility operated by the Appellees. After Reinshagen's death, his Estate filed suit alleging…
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 Violation Of Statutory Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
The Estate-of Robert F. Reinshagen (“Estate”), which was the plaintiff below, appeals the trial court’s order compelling arbitration. Mr. Reinshagen was a former resident of the Appellees’ assisted living facility. Estate filed the instant suit, alleging that its decedent sustained injuries resulting in his death due to Appellees’ negligence and violations of decedent’s statutory rights under chapter 429, Florida Statutes. ' Appellees successfully compelled arbitration pursuant to an arbitration clause in the residence agreement between Appellees and the decedent.
We reverse the order compelling arbitration based upon our recent opinion in *225 Estate of Novosett v. Arc Villages II, LLC, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D652, 189 So.3d 895, 2016 WL 916936 (Fla. 5th DCA Mar. 11, 2016). In that case, the trial'fcDurt' held that the provisions in the arbitration agreement between the nursing’home owner/operators and the estate of a deceased resident of the nursing home, which placed a cap on noneconomic damages and precluded the availability of punitive damages, were void as against public policy. 41 Fla. L. Weekly at D653. However, the court concluded that arbitration of the parties’ dispute was still required pursuant to the parties’ agreement because the agreement contained a severability clause that permitted the court to sever any unenforceable provisions of the contract without invalidating the entire agreement. Id. Citing to Gessa v. Manor Care of Florida, 86 So.3d 484 (Fla.2011),1 we reversed, concluding that because the offending clauses went to the very essence of the agreement^ the entire agreement was invalidated, notwithstanding the severability clause. Id.
Here, as in Estate of Novosett, the agreement between the parties placed a cap on the recovery of noneconomic damages and precluded the recovery of punitive damages.2 Accordingly, consistent with Estate of Novosett, the order compelling arbitration is reversed and this cause is remanded for further proceedings. As we did in Estate of Novosett, we certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court as one of great public importance:
DOES THE COURT’S HOLDING IN GESSA V MANOR CARE OF FLORIDA, 86 So.3d 484 (Fla.2011), CONTROL WHERE, AS HERE, THE CONTRACT CONTAINS A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE?
* REVERSED' and REMANDED; QUESTION CERTIFIED.
PALMER, TORPY, and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Klemish v. Alex Villacastin, M.D., 216 So. 3d 14 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)
-
Gaeta v. Seaside Manor, LLC, 238 So. 3d 448 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
-
Gaeta v. Seaside Manor (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gessa v. Manor Care OF Fla., Inc., 86 So. 3d 484 (Fla. 2011)
- Estate OE Yetta Novosett v. ARC Villages II, LLC, 189 So. 3d 895 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)