Oh happy day, the bunker is back baby, so let's see dig right in to this week's tasty morsels:
Suzlon v. Ventas:
Judges Fernandez and Salter disagree over whether an arbitration was properly authorized.
From Judge Salter's dissent:
I respectfully dissent. We should not engage in the very judicial proceedings that these international companies sought to avoid when they specified in their commission agreement that “[a]ny dispute or controversy arising in connection with this Agreement shall be subject to (and settled by) final and binding arbitration.” The threshold or “gatekeeper” determination regarding Mr. Rondon’s authority to initiate Ventus’s demand for arbitration, made here and now by the majority (after, and contrary to, the International Centre for Dispute Resolution Tribunal’s ruling on that very point), was a “controversy arising in connection with the agreement” that was properly heard and ruled upon by the tribunal and should not be revisited, much less nullified, by a Florida appellate court. The circuit court ruled in accordance with the deferential and extremely limited scope of review specified by the Florida and counterpart federal arbitration statutes (as interpreted by the Florida Supreme Court), such that the order confirming the Tribunal’s detailed and closely-reasoned award should be affirmed.Albelo v. Southern Oaks Insurance:
Insurance company gets hit with 57.105 sanctions for fighting an octogenarian's premises liability claim.
Barnes v. Castle Beach:
Here it is kids, your word of the day:
SHEPHERD, J., concurring dubitante."Dubitante"?