STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
GARY A. GLASS AND LEORA GLASS, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the existence of uninsured motorist coverage is a question for the court, not for arbitration, and the trial court erred in dismissing the counterclaim and ordering arbitration before determining coverage.
[1] Issues concerning the existence of uninsured motorist coverage are for the court to determine, not for arbitration.
[2] A court must determine the insurance status of an allegedly negligent driver before referring parties to arbitration.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Glasses sued State Farm to compel arbitration of their uninsured motorist claim after State Farm denied coverage. State Farm filed a counterclaim …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Liability Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
State Farm Fire & Casualty Company seeks reversal of two judgments entered in favor of appellees, Gary and Leora Glass. The first judgment dismissed appellant’s counterclaim. The second judgment granted appellees a summary judgment and directed the parties to proceed to arbitration. The litigation was commenced by the Glasses’ filing a complaint to compel arbitration pursuant to the terms of their automobile insurance policy issued by appellant. The complaint alleged that the Glasses had sustained injuries and damages as a result of the negligence of an uninsured motorist, and that a claim had been submitted to appellant and denied. It was further alleged that the Glasses had then demanded arbitration and that, too, had been declined.
Accordingly, the Glasses prayed for an order requiring appellant to arbitrate. Appellant answered generally denying the allegations of the complaint and contending that it is not required to arbitrate because uninsured motorist coverage does not exist under the circumstances of this case since the accident in question did not arise out of the operation, maintenance or use of an uninsured motor vehicle. Appellant also filed a counterclaim for declaratory relief, in which it requested the court to declare that the Glasses did not have uninsured motorist coverage under the circumstances of this case.
The trial court issued an order on November 13, 1981, dismissing the counterclaim and granted a motion for summary judgment on December 22, 1981, directing the parties to proceed to arbitration. Those judgments are the subject of these consolidated appeals.
The existence of insurance coverage is a question for the court, not one for arbitration. As the court stated in Vigilant Insurance Company v. Kelps, 372 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1979):
It is well-settled that issues concerning the existence of uninsured motorist coverage may be determined only by the court, and, conversely, may not be a subject of the arbitration proceedings commonly provided for in such policies. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. v. Goldman, 346 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Mirth, 333 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Zeagler v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. of New York, 166 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964); Cruger v. Allstate Ins. Co., 162 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964), writ disch. 172 So. 2d 450 (Fla.1965).
It is just as clear that no UM coverage exists if the offending motorist is not actually un-or underinsured. Hayston v. Allstate Ins. Co., 290 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Green v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 181 So. 2d 198, 199 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965) (“It is essential to coverage under the policy that the status of the motorist, as to uninsured or insured, be established.”) To complete the syllogism, it therefore follows that the court, and not the arbitrators, must determine 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, merely held that issues of liability of an admittedly uninsured motorist were for the arbitrators to decide. Concededly, there is some confusion in the cases, probably caused by the use of the terms “liability” and “coverage.” We understand the law to be that, after the court has determined that the insured’s uninsured motorist policy is applicable to the case at hand, the arbitrators then determine the liability of the carrier, i.e., how much, if anything, the carrier must pay for the insured’s alleged damages.
Given the foregoing, the trial court erred in dismissing appellant’s counterclaim and in ordering the parties to arbitrate. The counterclaim poses a serious question as to whether the Glasses’ policy covers the factual situation surrounding the accident. That question should first be determined by the court and, if the coverage applies, then the court should refer the parties to arbitration.
The two judgments under review are reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
LETTS, C.J., and WALDEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Balarin v. Allstate Ins. Co., 481 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…o amend the complaint herein to add the second of two underin-sured motorist carriers as a party to this suit and stood on their complaint brought against only one of their underinsured motorist carriers. See State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Glass, 421 So. 2d 759, 761 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); O’Donnell v. Chamberlain, 372 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); § 682.03(1), Fla.Stat. (1983). Reversed and remanded.…
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Candreva, 497 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…sor was negligent, it must also be within their province to determine whether he was grossly negligent, thus bringing the case out of the immunity of the Workers’ Compensation statute. We do not construe State Farm Fire & Casualty Company v. Glass, 421 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), as requiring a different result. In that case, this court stated: Concededly, there is some confusion in the cases, probably caused by the use of the terms “liability” and “coverage.” We understand the law to be that, after the…
-
Bradley v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., 460 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…appellant was entitled to uninsured motorist coverage under the GEICO policy, the trial court, not the arbitrators, was required to determine whether the uninsured motorist policy applied to the case at hand, State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Glass, 421 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), and was empowered to make the threshold factual determination that the uninsured motorist was not solely responsible for the plaintiff’s injuries and that the negligence of the insured motorist contributed to the accident as wel…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Cruger v. Allstate Ins. Co., 162 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Zeagler v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. OF NEW York, 166 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- 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)
- Hayston v. Allstate Ins. Co., 290 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Burgio v. Frank Mercede & Sons OF Fla., 372 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Goldman, 346 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Dade Neon Sign & Serv. & Hwy. Ins. Co. v. Vidal, 172 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 1965)
- Commercial Union Ins. Co. OF NEW York v. Zeagler, 172 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 1965)
- Green v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 181 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)