Meikle v. U-Haul Co. of Florida, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D198 (Fla. 4th DCA Jan. 15, 2025):

The plaintiff was a minor when he was injured by equipment that his mother had rented from a U-Haul. Plaintiffs sued U-Haul for negligence. U-Haul then sought to enforce an arbitration agreement based on a provision in the mother’s rental contract for the equipment.

The plaintiff argued that the arbitration agreement was not valid, and even if it were, it could not be enforced against a nonparty to the rental contract. The court compelled arbitration under the contract and then delegated the resolution of issues regarding arbitrability to the arbitrator.

When ruling on a motion to compel arbitration, a court generally considers whether (1) a valid written agreement to arbitrate exists; (2) an arbitrable issue exists; (3) the right to arbitration has been waived.

Parties to a contract containing a purported arbitration agreement can agree to submit to the arbitrator any gateway questions of arbitrability, such as whether the parties have agreed to arbitrate or whether their agreement covers a particular controversy.

Based on this authority, the circuit court did correctly decide that the questions of arbitrability were left to the arbitrator. However, because the minor child was not a party to the rental contract, and because a non-contracting party cannot be bound to an arbitration agreement, the court erred in compelling arbitration.

While an exception allowing arbitration does exist when a parent signs the contract on a minor’s behalf, no parent signed the contract on the minor’s behalf in this case. It is undisputed that the plaintiff was not a party to the contract, and as a result, the court reversed the order compelling arbitration.