Coventry First LLC v. Marmorstein
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
July Term 2006
COVENTRY FIRST LLC,
Appellant,
v.
WARREN MARMORSTEIN,
Appellee.
No. 4D06-2139
[December 20, 2006]
KLEIN, J.
We withdraw our opinion filed on November 1, 2006 and replace it
with this opinion.
Marmorstein sued Coventry First LLC for tortious interference with a
business relationship he had with the Wallachs. Coventry moved to
compel arbitration under the contract it had with Marmorstein, because
the contract provided for arbitration of all disputes. The trial court
denied arbitration, but we reverse.
Coventry and Marmorstein entered into a written agreement in which
Marmorstein, a CPA and financial advisor, agreed to procure the sale of
existing life insurance policies to Coventry from the owners of policies.
This was a non-exclusive agreement which permitted Marmorstein to
submit policies to other companies and permitted Coventry to accept
policies from other producers.
The contract did, however, require
Marmorstein to submit all policies to Coventry even though it did not
preclude him from submitting the same policies to other prospective
purchasers.
In this case Marmorstein alleged that he had a contract with the
Wallachs to sell their life insurance policy, and that Marmorstein had
found a purchaser other than Coventry to purchase the policy.
Marmorstein had submitted the Wallachs policy to several prospective
purchasers including Coventry.
Marmorstein alleges tortious
interference against both Coventry and the Wallachs; however, it is only
the claim against Coventry which involves arbitration.
Section 5 of the agreement between Marmorstein and Coventry, which
referred to Marmorstein as the “producer,” provided that certain
proprietary information about Coventry was confidential and authorized
Coventry to obtain an injunction in the event the producer breached the
confidentiality agreement. The arbitration provision which followed
stated:
Arbitration. Except to the extent that the Coventry and/or
other Coventry Parties may seek equitable relief pursuant to
Section 5 above, all other disputes between the parties
(including any Producer Party) and any claims which may be
brought against any Coventry Party shall be settled by
arbitration administered by the American Arbitration
Association in accordance with its Commercial Arbitration
Rules.
Both parties recognize that Seifert v. United States Home Corp., 750
So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1999), is the Florida Supreme Court case most on point.
In that case the Seiferts had purchased a new home from U.S. Home
under a contract which provided for arbitration of any controversy
“arising under or related to this Agreement.” After the Seiferts moved
into their home they left the car running in the garage, and the air
conditioning system distributed the carbon monoxide emissions from the
car into the house, killing Mr. Seifert. His widow brought a wrongful
death action for negligence against U.S. Home, and the issue was
whether the contract required arbitration.
After surveying the case law from Florida and other jurisdictions, our
supreme court stated:
As the prevailing case law illustrates, even in contracts
containing broad arbitration provisions, the determination of
whether a particular claim must be submitted to arbitration
necessarily depends on the existence of some nexus between
the dispute and the contract containing the arbitration
clause.
Id. at 638.
2
Marmorstein has not attached his contract with Coventry to his
complaint; however, he has alleged in his complaint that he had a
business relationship with Coventry for the purpose of presenting
opportunities to purchase life insurance policies. The duties which
Marmorstein and Coventry owe each other in their business relationship
are spelled out by the contract. Coventry points out that the agreement
provides that if Coventry receives an application from Marmorstein and
any other person involving the same policy, Coventry would have the
right to decide which producer it would make the settlement with, and
that it would have no liability if it used a person other than Marmorstein.
Coventry accordingly takes the position that it was entitled under the
contract to exclude Marmorstein when it purchased the Wallachs’ policy.
Seifert requires that there be “some nexus between the dispute and
the contract containing the arbitration clause.” Seifert at 638. In this
case there is that nexus.
First, Coventry became aware of the
opportunity to purchase the Wallachs’ policy through its contractual
relationship with Marmorstein. Second, Coventry contends that it had a
right, under the contract, to purchase the policy without Marmorstein’s
involvement.
Marmorstein points out that this is a tort claim and, because Seifert
involved a tort claim, the cases are similar.
The Seifert court
emphasized, however, that the claim was for death or personal injuries,
which involved “duties wholly independent from the agreement.” Seifert,
750 So. 2d at 642. In this case the damages are not for personal injuries
or wrongful death, but rather for the type of compensation Marmorstein
would normally earn through his contractual relationship with Coventry.
We accordingly conclude that, under Seifert and the cases cited in
Seifert, Marmorstein’s claim for tortious interference must be arbitrated.1
Reversed.
1
The arbitration provision in the present case requiring arbitration of “all
disputes” is broader than the arbitration provision in Seifert, which included
the “related to this Agreement” language. Although both parties have cited
cases from Florida and other jurisdictions, neither has found a case which has
such a broad arbitration clause. Because there is a relationship in this case
between the dispute and the contract, it is unnecessary for us to decide
whether the provision in this case would apply to disputes which are unrelated
to the contract.
3
POLEN and MAY, JJ., concur.
*
*
*
Appeal of a non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth
Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Barry E. Goldstein, Judge; L.T. Case
No. 05-11511 CACE 11.
Cozen O'Connor and Sherril M. Colombo, Miami and F. Warren
Jacoby and Jennifer M. McHugh, Philadelphia, for appellant.
Ronald M. Zakarin of Schwartz, Gold, Cohen, Zakarin & Kotler, P.A.,
Boca Raton and Andrew S. Berman of Young, Berman, Karpf & Gonzalez,
P.A., North Miami Beach, for appellee.
4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.