Opinion ID: 1944696
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Restrictions on Intertrack Wagering on Simulcast Signals

Text: Although we conclude that section 550.6305(g)(1) unambiguously dictates that Gulfstream cannot prevent TBD from making simulcast signals from out-of-state thoroughbred tracks on which it accepts wagers available to other Florida pari-mutuel venues, the next issue we must address in this litigation is whether Gulfstream's contracts can be used to prevent TBD from contracting with the pari-mutuel venues to which it disseminates the simulcast signals to allow these other venues to accept intertrack wagers on these simulcast signals. Contractual provisions in Gulfstream's exclusive dissemination agreements also attempt to grant Gulfstream the right to prevent other pari-mutuel venues from engaging in intertrack wagers on the simulcast signals disseminated by TBD, which provides a monetary impact to the present dispute. TBD asserts that the DPW's declaratory statement also supports the premise that section 550.615(3) of the Florida Statutes prohibits enforcement of these restrictions in the agreements. However, our review of the declaratory statement reveals that this assertion is without support. While the DPW stated in the declaratory statement that an agreement which operates to prohibit TBD from rebroadcasting these simulcast signals violates both sections 550.615(3) and 550.6305(9)(g)(1) of Florida's Wagering Act, the declaratory statement expressly declined to find that Gulfstream violated section 550.615(3) of the Florida Statutes. See Gulfstream, 294 F.Supp.2d at 1298. While we recognize that the DPW's interpretation is entitled to great deference, the construction of the Wagering Act in the declaratory statement expressly invalidated Gulfstream's exclusive agreements on the basis that the agreements restricted TBD's right to disseminate simulcast signals only. It did not, however, address whether an agreement which would allow TBD to disseminate simulcast signals, but prohibit the venues receiving such signals from conducting intertrack wagering on those signals, would also violate the Wagering Act. Therefore, DPW's declaratory statement impacts only one element of the certified question. However, our analysis of section 550.615(3) leads us to conclude that the statutory provision does, in fact, prohibit enforcement of the provisions in the exclusive agreements which would restrict the right of TBD to contract with other pari-mutuel venues to allow those venues to conduct intertrack wagering on the simulcast signals disseminated by TBD. Section 550.615(3) states: If a permitholder elects to broadcast its signal to any permitholder in this state, any permitholder that is eligible to conduct intertrack wagering under the provisions of [this act] is entitled to receive the broadcast and conduct intertrack wagering under this section. . . . § 550.615(3), Fla. Stat. (2005). We have stated that normally, [w]hen the language of [a] statute is clear and unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning, there is no occasion for resorting to the rules of statutory interpretation and construction. McLaughlin v. State, 721 So.2d 1170, 1172 (Fla.1998) (quoting Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217, 219 (Fla.1984)). Gulfstream asserts that reference to the signal of a permitholder in section 550.615(3) restricts the application of that section to only intrastate signals of live races taking place at Florida pari-mutuel facilities and does not address simulcast signals from out-of-state tracks. Gulfstream further contends that because the word its modifies the word signal, the signal must be only one owned by a Florida permitholder and, therefore, its signal does not include simulcast signals of out-of-state racetracks which are owned by the out-of-state facility conducting the live race. If, as Gulfstream contends, the language of the statute is clearly limited to broadcasts of races occurring live in-state and without ambiguity, TBD's assertion that the Court should look beyond the language of the statute to construe the terms is inappropriate. See McLaughlin, 721 So.2d at 1172. However, we conclude that the term its signal in the statutory context is not entirely unambiguous. We have stated that [t]he title [of a statute] is more than an index to what the section is about or has reference to; it is a direct statement by the legislature of its intent. State v. Webb, 398 So.2d 820, 825 (Fla.1981) (citing Berger v. Jackson, 156 Fla. 251, 23 So.2d 265 (1945)). The title of section 550.615 is intertrack wagering. See § 550.615, Fla. Stat. (2005). The definitions section of the Wagering Act defines an intertrack wager as a particular form of pari-mutuel wagering in which wagers are accepted at a permitted, in-state track, fronton, or pari-mutuel facility on a race or game transmitted from and performed live at, or simulcast signal rebroadcast [3] from, another in-state pari-mutuel facility. § 550.002(17), Fla. Stat. (2005). If we were to conclude that the section has application to only signals of live races occurring at in-state facilities, the phrase or simulcast signal rebroadcast from . . . another in-state pari-mutuel facility in the definition of intertrack wager would be rendered totally redundant and without meaning because the words would simply refer to the same type of wager already clearly described in other language in the same statutory provision. A live race occurring at an in-state facility which is broadcast to another in-state facility is encompassed in the language a race or game transmitted from and performed live at . . . another in-state pari-mutuel facility in the definition of intertrack wagering. Id. If the language pertaining to the rebroadcast of simulcast signals also refers only to signals of live races transmitted from in-state facilities, as Gulfstream argues, this language adds absolutely nothing to the meaning of the statute, contrary to accepted rules of statutory construction. We have noted: It is an elementary principle of statutory construction that significance and effect must be given to every word, phrase, sentence, and part of the statute if possible, and words in a statute should not be construed as mere surplusage. Hechtman v. Nations Title Ins. of N.Y., 840 So.2d 993, 996 (Fla.2003) (citing Hawkins v. Ford Motor Co., 748 So.2d 993 (Fla.1999)). This principle dictates that the language pertaining to a rebroadcast of simulcast signals must be given some independent meaning and field of operation. Simulcasting is defined in the pari-mutuel act as broadcasting events occurring live at an in-state location to an out-of-state location, or receiving at an in-state location events occurring live at an out-of-state location through various methods. § 550.002(32), Fla. Stat. (2005). It is logical to conclude that the language in the definition of intertrack wagering pertaining to simulcast signal[s] rebroadcast from . . . another in-state pari-mutuel facility includes the current method of disseminating simulcast signals of out-of-state thoroughbred races that is at issue in the instant matter. See § 550.002(17), Fla. Stat. (2005). The words its signal in section 550.615(3) are intended to include a simulcast signal of a race occurring live at an out-of-state location if an in-state facility disseminates that signal to other in-state facilities. At the very least, this interpretation creates ambiguity as to the meaning of the words its signal in section 550.615(3). If the meaning of a statutory provision is deemed ambiguous, it must be subject to judicial construction. See Blanton v. City of Pinellas Park, 887 So.2d 1224, 1230 (Fla.2004) ([I]f the statutory language is ambiguous . . . `the Court must resort to traditional rules of statutory construction to determine legislative intent.') (quoting Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 772 So.2d 1273, 1282 (Fla. 2000)). This Court has stated that [s]tatutes are construed to effectuate the intent of the legislature in light of public policy. White v. Pepsico, Inc., 568 So.2d 886, 889 (Fla.1990). The legislative history of the 1996 bill which permitted full-card simulcasting and precipitated Gulfstream's exclusive dissemination agreements sheds some light on the legislative intent with regard to intertrack wagering on simulcast signals being disseminated to in-state facilities. The Final Bill Analysis and Economic Impact Statement completed by the House Committee on Regulated Industries first explained the conditions for intertrack wagering to be: Any eligible Horse racing permitholder may, at any time, accept the signal from any other Horse racing permitholder in the state. Any eligible greyhound or jai alai permitholder may, at any time, receive broadcasts of any class of pari-mutuel race or game conducted by any licensed permitholder in the state. Any class of permitholder may elect to make its signal available for intertrack wagering. If a permitholder elects to broadcast its signal, it must make that signal available to any eligible permitholder. No person may attempt to restrain a permitholder from sending or receiving ITW broadcasts. Fla. H.R. Comm. on Reg'd Indus., CS for HB 337 (1996) Staff Analysis at 3 (final June 10, 1996) (available at Fla. Dept. of State, Fla. State Archives, ser. 19, carton 2779, Tallahassee, Fla.) (hereinafter Committee Report). The Committee Report's reference to broadcasts of any class of pari-mutuel race or game conducted by any licensed permitholder in the state implies that its signal to which the requirements of the statute apply is, as Gulfstream asserts, the signal of an in-state facility broadcasting live races conducted by that facility. Id. The Committee Report, however, further addressed intertrack wagering on simulcast signals rebroadcast from an in-state facility and stated: A unique situation arises when a Horse racing permitholder accepts a simulcast signal from an out-of-state facility and then rebroadcasts that signal to other pari-mutuel permitholders within this state. Horse racing permitholders may . . . broadcast such out-of-state races to any guest track and accept wagers thereon in the same manner as is provided in [the simulcasting provisions of the Florida pari-mutuel code.] The division refers to such activity as intertrack wagering of simulcast, or ISW. In such case, the purse payments and guest track payments otherwise applicable to [intertrack wagering] do not apply. Id. at 5 (alteration in original). While the useful term intertrack wagering of simulcast does not appear in the Wagering Act, some information on legislative intent can be gleaned from this committee statement. First, the statement makes clear that wagering on simulcast signals rebroadcast from in-state tracks is a form of intertrack wagering. This supports the assertion that these are the types of wagers referenced in the statutory definition of intertrack wagering which includes simulcast signal[s] rebroadcast from . . . another in-state pari-mutuel facility. § 550.002(17), Fla. Stat. (2005). Additionally, the statement that purse payments and guest track payments otherwise applicable to [intertrack wagering] do not apply to these wagers at least implies that the other conditions of intertrack wagering mentioned in the statute do apply. If intertrack wagers on simulcast signals were intended to be excepted from all of the statutory requirements of intertrack wagers, the Committee Report arguably would have made a statement to this effect, rather than only mentioning exceptions from purse and guest track payments. Under this reasoning, the statutory requirement that an in-state facility which elect[s] to make its signal available for intertrack wagering . . . must make that signal available to any eligible permitholder, Committee Report at 3, would apply to intertrack wagering of simulcast. See § 550.615(3), Fla. Stat. (2005). Similarly, the statement in section 550.615(3) that pari-mutuel facilities receiving these signals are permitted to conduct intertrack wagering on those signals would likewise apply to disseminated simulcast signals. This construction of section 550.615(3) also provides consistency with the unambiguous language in section 550.6305(9)(g)(1), which requires that pari-mutuel facilities accepting wagers on simulcast signals make those signals available to other pari-mutuel venues. A construction of the pari-mutuel act which would require these simulcast signals to be made available but also allow prohibition of intertrack wagering on those signals once received would render the requirement that those signals be made available illogical. Pari-mutuel venues would have no interest in receiving these simulcast signals if they could not conduct intertrack wagering with regard to the signal. Therefore, we conclude that enforcement of the exclusive agreements involved in the instant action is also prohibited by section 550.615(3), and this analysis also supports and causes the answer to the certified question to be in the affirmative.