PROTECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY, AN INDIANA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
DIEGO PALMA AND ISABEL PALMA, 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 question of whether a phantom driver's negligence contributed to an accident is for arbitrators, not the court.
This case involves an appeal concerning uninsured motorist (UM) coverage. The core issue is whether the negligence of a "phantom" driver contributed t…
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 Uninsured Motorist Coverage cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
We again follow our repeated holdings that the simple non-coverage question of whether the negligence of a hit-and-run, so-called “phantom” driver1 contributed to the accident of which a UM insured complains is a question for the arbitrators, not the court. Ebens v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 278 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Industrial Fire & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Coquemard, 332 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Florida Ins. Guaranty Ass’n, Inc. v. Eberhart, 354 . So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); see also Stack v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 507 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
The cases upon which the appellant relies are distinguishable in that each involves a separate issue as to a disputed question of coverage. E.g., Bradley v. Government Employees 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. 4th DCA 1982).
Affirmed.
. Such an operator is conclusively deemed an uninsured motorist as a matter of law. Vigilant Ins. Co. v. Kelps, 372 So. 2d 207, 209 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Metro. Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co. v. Salgado, 518 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See O’Donnell v. Colonial Penn Ins. Co., 509 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Stack v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 507 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Protective Ins. Co. v. Palma, 507 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).…
-
Liscio v. Montgomery Ward Ins. Co., 603 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…torist was involved was not a [*78] question relating to coverage, but was an issue bearing on the right of the plaintiff to recover under his uninsured motorist coverage. Id. Following Ebens, the Third District in Protective Insurance Co. v. Palma, 507 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), stated: “[w]e again follow our repeated holdings that the simple non-coverage question of whether the negligence of a hit-and-run, so-called ‘phantom’ driver contributed to the accident of which a UM insured complains is a questi…
Authorities Cited
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Glass, 421 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Ebens v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 278 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Bayles v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 483 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 1985)
- Stack v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 507 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- 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)
- Indus. Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Coquemard, 332 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Criterion Ins. Co. v. Amador, 479 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)