Case Name: SAC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. MILAM DAIRY ASSOCIATES, a Florida partnership and Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, Appellees/Cross-Appellants
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1985-12-10
Citations: 481 So. 2d 28
Docket Number: No. 84-1968
Parties: SAC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. MILAM DAIRY ASSOCIATES, a Florida partnership and Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 481
Pages: 28–28

Head Matter:
SAC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. MILAM DAIRY ASSOCIATES, a Florida partnership and Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
No. 84-1968.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Dec. 10, 1985.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 21, 1986.
Horton, Perse & Ginsberg and Mallory Horton, Miami, for appellant/cross-appel-lee.
Irving B. Levenson, Miami Beach, for appellees/cross-appellants.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We do not agree with appellant's contentions that, in two respects, the trial court erred in setting aside portions of an arbitrator's award on the ground that they were unauthorized by the underlying agreement. See School Board of Seminole County v. Cornelison, 406 So.2d 484 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), pet. for review denied, 421 So.2d 67 (Fla.1982). Likewise, we find no merit in the claim on cross-appeal that another aspect of the award was beyond the issues submitted to arbitration. See 6 C.J.S. Arbitration § 109 (1975); cf. Fla.R. Civ.P. 1.190(b). Accordingly, the judgment under review, in its entirety, is
Affirmed.