Arbitration clauses are not uncommon in residential leases, assisted living residency agreements, and other housing-related contracts. These clauses aim to streamline dispute resolution, but their enforceability depends on how they are drafted and whether their terms are fair. Two recent Florida appellate decisions—Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. v. Gonzalez (2025) and ADDIT, LLC v. Hengesbach (2022)—provide a comprehensive look at how courts interpret and enforce arbitration provisions, especially when such clauses attempt to carve out certain claims like evictions or impose one-sided obligations.
1. Mid-America Apartment Communities v. Gonzalez (2025): Broad Arbitration Clauses Covering Tort Claims
In Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. v. Gonzalez, 406 So.3d 362 (Fla. 2d DCA 2025), the issue was whether a tenant’s premises liability claim fell within a lease’s arbitration clause.
Facts:
Alejandra Gonzalez sued Mid-America after she tripped on a defective utility box cover in a common area of her apartment complex. The landlord moved to compel arbitration based on the lease, which required “all claims” between the tenant and landlord—including tort and personal injury claims related to the use of common areas—to be arbitrated.
Trial Court Decision:
The trial court denied arbitration, reasoning that a tort claim for negligence arose from independent duties outside the lease agreement. The landlord appealed that ruling.
Appellate Ruling:
The Second District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s ruling, holding that the arbitration clause was unambiguous and expressly covered personal injury claims arising from the use of common areas. The court relied on Lennar Homes, LLC v. Wilkinsky, No. 4D22-1239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) and emphasized that when the language clearly includes tort claims, courts need not apply the “significant relationship” test from Seifert v. U.S. Home Corp., 750 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1999).
Lesson:
Landlords can enforce arbitration for premises liability and other tort claims if the clause is broadly and explicitly drafted to include such disputes.
2. ADDIT, LLC v. Hengesbach (2022): Unconscionability and Carve-Outs for Evictions
In ADDIT, LLC v. Hengesbach, 341 So.3d 362 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022), the Second DCA addressed an arbitration agreement in an assisted living facility (ALF) residency contract. The agreement required residents to arbitrate all disputes—except for eviction claims, which the ALF could bring in court.
Facts:
The estate of Carl Ingolia sued the ALF for negligence, wrongful death, and statutory violations. The ALF sought to compel arbitration, but the residency agreement contained several problematic terms, including:
- A waiver of attorneys’ fees and appeal rights.
- Limits on discovery.
- A one-sided carve-out allowing the ALF to litigate evictions in court while residents had to arbitrate all other claims.
- A confidentiality requirement.
Trial Court Decision:
The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration, finding the clause unconscionable.
Appellate Ruling:
The Second DCA reversed in part, holding that while the arbitration agreement contained unconscionable terms, these terms could be severed due to the presence of a severability clause. Importantly, the court ruled that the carve-out for evictions was substantively unconscionable because it created a one-sided obligation: the ALF reserved the right to litigate eviction cases in court, while residents were forced to arbitrate every other type of dispute. This imbalance unfairly favored the ALF and violated basic principles of fairness in contract enforcement.
The court directed the trial court to strike the unconscionable provisions—including the eviction carve-out—and enforce the remainder of the arbitration clause.
Lesson:
Courts will not enforce arbitration clauses that reserve litigation rights exclusively for landlords or property owners while requiring tenants or residents to arbitrate all disputes. Such one-sided carve-outs for evictions or collections are likely to be struck down as substantively unconscionable.
3. Drafting Lessons for Landlords and Property Managers
The Gonzalez and Hengesbach decisions highlight both the strength and vulnerability of arbitration clauses, depending on how they are written. Consider these practices:
- Use Clear and Inclusive Language: Draft arbitration clauses that explicitly cover tort claims, premises liability, and disputes involving common areas.
- Avoid One-Sided Carve-Outs: Carving out claims such as evictions or collections for landlords while forcing tenants to arbitrate all disputes may be struck down as substantively unconscionable, as in ADDIT v. Hengesbach.
- Include Severability Clauses: A severability clause can save an arbitration provision even if certain terms are found unenforceable.
- Make the Clause Conspicuous: Ensure that tenants or residents are clearly informed of arbitration requirements, preferably with bold headings or opt-out rights.
- Balance Fairness and Efficiency: Avoid oppressive terms like attorney’s fee waivers or overly restrictive discovery, which courts may sever or invalidate.
Conclusion
These two cases provide a roadmap for drafting enforceable arbitration clauses in lease and residency agreements. Mid-America v. Gonzalez demonstrates that broad, unambiguous clauses can cover personal injury claims in common areas, while ADDIT v. Hengesbach serves as a warning against one-sided carve-outs that favor landlords or property managers. To ensure enforceability, arbitration clauses must be fair, balanced, and clearly expressed, while still protecting the landlord’s interests.