Opinion ID: 1855835
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Terminix International Co. v. Michaels

Text: Petitioner relies on the Fourth District's holding in Terminix International Co. v. Michaels, 668 So.2d 1013 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), which in turn relied upon and adopted the reasoning and holding of the Arizona court in Dusold. In Terminix, the plaintiffs filed claims based on negligence and strict liability for personal injuries sustained from Terminix's alleged tortious use of ultrahazardous chemicals during insect eradication at the plaintiff's house. Terminix moved to dismiss based on an arbitration provision in the contract to provide eradication services which stated that any controversy or claim between them [the contracting parties] arising out of or relating to the interpretation, performance, or breach of any provision of this agreement shall be settled exclusively by arbitration. The trial court denied the motion, emphasizing that arbitration would dispense with the Michaels' right to trial by jury where it was not clear that personal injuries were subject to arbitration. Michaels, 668 So.2d at 1014. On appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the order of denial by concluding that the tort claim of the Michaels did not arise out of or relate to the interpretation, performance, or breach of any provision of this agreement and, therefore, such claims were not subject to the contract's arbitration provision. Following the logic of Dusold, the Fourth District explained that Terminix's duty to warn of the dangerous nature of its chemical product arose not from the terms of the eradication contract but from a general duty imposed on the producer and distributor of hazardous chemicals. Michaels, 668 So.2d at 1015. The court reasoned that the general protection of persons was not within the subject matter of the contract, and therefore the dispute was not subject to the arbitration provision within the contract because it did not arise out of or relate to the contract. Id.