HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
JOSEPHINE CLASSIE, APPELLEE
BASKIN, Judge.
Only the court may determine issues concerning the existence of uninsured motorist coverage, Vigilant Insurance Co. v. Kelps, 372 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), that is, the insurance status of the allegedly negligent motorist. Arbitrators may determine whether the facts of the case disclose a “right or basis for recovery under the coverage provided for in the policy”, Ebens v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 278 So. 2d 674, 675 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), that is, the factual merit of the claim. Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Mirth, 333 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); see also Allstate Insurance Co. v. Langston, 358 So. 2d 1387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). The trial court correctly ruled in accordance with these principles; we therefore affirm the Final Judgment which established uninsured motorist coverage and ordered arbitration proceedings as to proximate cause of the injury.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Glass, 421 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…ne the insurance status of the allegedly negligent driver (or parker) of the vehicle in question. Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Mirth, supra, squarely so holds. 372 So. 2d 207, at 208. See also: Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company v. Classie, 396 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1981). Appellees rely heavily upon the case of Ebens v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 278 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1973). However, as the same court stated in Vigilant, supra, its prior decision in Ebens, supra, merel…
-
Stack v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 507 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…resolution of the gross negligence question should be resolved by the court as a coverage question or by the arbitration panel as a disputed factual issue, is answered by recent decisions of this court. In Hartford Accident & Indemn. Co. v. Classie, 396 So. 2d 1204 (Fla.3d DCA 1981), we distinguished the functions of the court and the arbitrator with respect to uninsured motorist claims. There, we held that “only the court may determine issues concerning the existence of coverage” and that it is the province o…
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Stack, 543 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…must be conducted to resolve the factual questions concerning the liability of the uninsured motorist,4 which we explicitly stated in the earlier opinion did not involve “coverage”—Stack, 507 So. 2d at 620; Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Classie, 396 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)— does not mitigate from the plaintiffs’ success in the present case.5 Affirmed. . The Stacks cross-appeal claiming that the award was inadequate and improperly computed under Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.…
Authorities Cited
- Ebens v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 278 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Mirth, 333 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Burgio v. Frank Mercede & Sons OF Fla., 372 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 358 So. 2d 1387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)