Two Florida courts have previously held that if the arbitration forum is "unavailable" for some reason, the parties are directed to either work out an alternative or seek relief from the court under Florida Statute 682.04. Specifically, we saw this when AAA declined to arbitrate health care cases and the parties' agreement referred the case to that forum.

A similar issue with an identical outcome arose in a homeowner's association - country club dispute in BallenIsles Country Club, Inc., Ballen Isles Community Association, Inc. et al. v. Dexter Realty d b a BallenIsles Realty (Damoorgian, May and Ciklin).

In this case, the arbitration clause was extremely broad (each and every dispute, claim or other matter of disagreement... shall only be decided by arbitration).

The procedure was for different representatives on the association board to pick arbitrators. However, by the time the dispute arose, the representatives were no longer on the board.

The court first acknowledged that disputes over arbitration are typically analyzed in favor of arbitration. The court then held that the procedural clause did not appear to limit or curtail the breadth of the arbitration provision, which was in fact repeated twice (shall only be decided by arbitration).

The court concluded, "the mere fact that the arbitration procedure that the parties selected cannot be implemented... does not limit the broad scope of the arbitration clause."