and did not alter FWUA’s Plan of Operation. The Plan of Operation was and is an administrative rule, and it is, of course, “ ‘axiomatic that an administrative rule cannot ... contravene the provisions of a statute.’ State, Dep’t of Bus. Reg. v. Salvation Ltd., 452 So.2d 65, 66 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Willette v. Air Prods., 700 So.2d 397, 401 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (‘A statute takes precedence over a rule.’).” See Clemons v. State Risk Mgmt. Trust Fund, 870 So.2d 881, 884 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (Benton, J., concurring). But FWUA’s Plan of Operation is also a con trolling corporate document, analogous to a private corporate charter, a private association’s articles of incorporation, or a private entity’s bylaws. See Word of Life Ministry, Inc. v. Miller, 778 So.2d 360, 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (<HOLDING>); S & T Anchorage, Inc. v. Lewis, 575 So.2d
holding that the court should determine reasonable damages in accordance with  3333 and then determine double damages in accordance with  3346 holding that claims of corporation vest in corporation holding that a hospitals bylaws are an integral part of its contractual relationship with the members of its medical staff holding that a corporation exists as an entity apart from its shareholders even where the corporation has but one shareholder the general proposition of corporate identity apart from its shareholders leads us to conclude in accordance with decisions from other jurisdictions that the attorneys client is the corporation and not the shareholders holding that corporation must act in accordance with its charter and bylaws