Court Opinion

ID: 7722154
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-30 19:30:19.736727+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:27:12.741155
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM.
We find no legal or factual basis for the order under review which, in effect, relieved the appellees of the duty to arbitrate the parties’ dispute as they had *441agreed. Roe v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 533 So.2d 279 (Fla.1988); Blackhawk Heating & Plumbing Co. v. Data Lease Fin. Corp., 302 So.2d 404 (Fla.1974); Medident Constr., Inc. v. Chappell, 632 So.2d 194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Montesino v. Advent Technologies, Inc., 676 So.2d 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), review denied, 684 So.2d 1350 (Fla.1996); Public Health Trust v. M.R. Harrison Constr. Corp., 415 So.2d 756 (Fla 3d DCA 1982), pet. for review denied, 427 So.2d 737 (Fla.1983); Hirschfeld v. Crescent Heights, X, Inc., 707 So.2d 955 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Hence, the order is reversed with directions to require arbitration.