We conclude that under the facts of this case the trial court correctly concluded that the issue of whether arbitration was demanded in a timely fashion should properly be before the arbitrator for determination. See Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79, 123 S.Ct. 588, 154 L.Ed.2d 491 (2002); Piercy v. School Board of Washington County, 576 So.2d 806 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Graham Contracting, Inc. v. Flagler County, 444 So.2d *441971 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 451 So.2d 848 (Fla. 1984); Rinker Portland Cement Corp. v. Seidel, 414 So.2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Public Health Trust of Dade Co. v. M.R. Harrison Constr. Corp., 415 So.2d 756 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), review denied, 427 So.2d 737 (Fla. 1983).

AFFIRMED.