CRITERION INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
SERGIO AMADOR, JR., APPELLEE
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.
Florida appellate court reversed the trial court's striking of an insurance company's affirmative defense and referral to arbitration, holding that coverage questions under insurance policies must be decided by the trial court, not arbitration.
When a trial court assumes jurisdiction in a declaratory decree action involving insurance coverage, it must determine all remaining issues between the parties, including affirmative defenses regarding coverage, rather than referring such matters to arbitration.
[1] Questions of insurance coverage and the applicability of uninsured motorist provisions are matters for determination by the trial court in a declaratory decree action, no…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCriterion Insurance Company appealed a judgment striking its affirmative defense that there was no uninsured motorist coverage because joint tortfeaso…
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 Declaratory Judgment Action Regarding Insurance Coverage cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals a final judgment striking its affirmative defense of no uninsured motorist coverage on the theory that there were joint tortfeasors, one of whom had liability coverage equal to or greater than the uninsured motorist coverage available to the appellee. The court struck this affirmative defense and entered a final judgment referring the matter to arbitration. We reverse.
The question of coverage under an insurance policy is for the trial court, even though, to determine coverage it may be necessary to ascertain a fact, to wit: the existence of a hit and run vehicle and the extent or lack thereof of insurance coverage applicable to said vehicle.
Therefore it was error to refer these issues to arbitration. Bradley v. Government Employees Insurance Company, 460 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); State Farm Fire & Casualty Company v. Glass, 421 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Vigilant Insurance Company v. Kelps, 372 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
Once a trial court assumes jurisdiction in a declaratory decree action as outlined above, it should determine all the remaining issues between the parties. Travelers Insurance Company v. Wilson, 371 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Company v. Beaver, 355 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Cruger v. Allstate Insurance Company, 162 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). The final judgment under review is reversed and the matter returned to the trial court with directions to reinstate the affirmative defense and to then determine the matter under the pleadings.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Elicer Licea and Hermida Licea, 649 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…to decide, not the arbitrator); Allstate v. Candreva, 497 So. 2d 980 (Fla.4th DCA1986) (it is the court’s duty to determine whether there is insurance coverage and the arbitrator’s duty to determine the extent of the loss); Criterion Ins. v. Amador, 479 So. 2d 300 (Fla.3d DCA 1985) (question of coverage under an insurance policy is for the court to determine, not the arbitrator); Nationwide Ins. v. Cooperstock, 472 So. 2d 547 (Fla.4th DCA1985) (coverage issues are for a court of law to decide, liability issue…
-
Protective Ins. Co. v. Palma, 507 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…ees Ins. Co., 460 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (question of whether another insured tortfeasor was involved, thus precluding UM coverage, see Bayles v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 483 So. 2d 402 (Fla.1985)); Criterion Ins. Co. v. Amador, 479 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (same); Vigilant Ins. Co. v. Kelps, 372 So. 2d 207, 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (question of whether second vehicle was hit-and-run or otherwise uninsured); see generally State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Glass, 421 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 4t…
Authorities Cited
- Cruger v. Allstate Ins. Co., 162 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Russell v. State, 355 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- The Travelers Ins. Co. v. Laurence H. Wilson, 371 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Glass, 421 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Burgio v. Frank Mercede & Sons OF Fla., 372 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Bradley v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., 460 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)