INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
STEVEN M. SCHRAGER AND JUDITH SCHRAGER, 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.
International Insurance Company appeals from a trial court order approving an arbitration award in an uninsured motorist dispute. The court reverses, holding that the arbitrator should have been disqualified due to circumstances creating an appearance of bias, even absent proof of actual partiality.
The arbitrator should have been disqualified. Under Florida law, an arbitrator need not be shown to have actual bias; disqualification is required when circumstances tend to bias the arbitrator's judgment or create the appearance of partiality. The arbitrator's participation in the instant case, given his involvement with an insurer in the same group, constituted error.
[1] An arbitrator is disqualified if there is a circumstance tending to bias their judgment, even if bias did not influence the judgment.
[2] Arbitrators exercise judicial functions and must provide the same procedural safeguards as judicial proceedings to ensure fairness and impartiality.
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 intelligence“to disqualify an arbitrator, it need not be shown that bias influenced his judgment, but only that there was a circumstance tending to bias that judgment.”
Establishes the standard for arbitrator disqualification under Florida law—circumstances tending to bias are sufficient, actual bias need not be proven.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn arbitration was conducted between International Insurance Company (the insurer) and the Schragers (the insured) regarding an uninsured motorist cla…
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 Arbitrator Impartiality cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the uninsured motorist insurer from two orders of the trial court subsequent to arbitration between the insured and the insurer. We reverse the trial court’s first order which approved the arbitration award and remand for proceedings consistent herewith. We conclude it unnecessary to reach the second order. It was error for the neutral arbitrator not to be removed by the trial court, not because of any proven partiality but because of Gaines Construction Co. v. Carol City Utilities, Inc., 164 So. 2d 270, 272 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964), where the court ruled that “to disqualify an arbitrator, it need not be shown that bias influenced his judgment, but only that there was a circumstance tending to bias that judgment.” (emphasis in original). The court further stated:
An arbitrator is required to be no less impartial than a juror sitting in the trial of a cause. If he fails in this his usefulness as an arbitrator is destroyed. Id. at 272-73. Factually, the arbitrator in the instant case, upon engaging in his duties, was advised that the insurer against which he was pursuing a bad faith claim on behalf of another insured was part of the same insurance group, Crum & Forster, as the instant insurer/appellant. He chose not to withdraw, and the trial court denied appellant’s motion to disqualify him. We conclude that it was error for him to participate.
Any tribunal permitted by law to try cases and controversies must avoid even the appearance of partiality. Each case must be reviewed on its own facts and an arbitration award should be set aside where the panel “might reasonably be thought biased.” Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Continental Casualty, 393 U.S. 145, 150, 89 S.Ct. 337, 340, 21 L.Ed.2d 301, 305 (1968). Florida courts have long recognized the importance of procedural safeguards to ensure the impartiality of arbitrators:
[T]he law is well settled that arbitrators exercise judicial functions, and are in fact, judicial officers.... It therefore becomes of the utmost importance that ... every procedural safeguard should be thrown about the proceedings to insure the utmost fairness and impartiality of those charged with the determination of the rights of the parties.
Cassara v. Wofford, 55 So. 2d 102, 105 (Fla.1951); see also Tassinari v. Loyer, 189 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966) (“Arbitration proceedings are judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings and as such are to have the same procedural safeguards as judicial proceedings even though they are not meant to be conducted with the formality of a court”).
In short, the appearance of neutrality can be as important as neutrality itself because of the former’s impact upon confidence in the proceedings — by the parties and by the public.
GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and WARNER and GARRETT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Boyhan v. Maguire, 693 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…ties Inc., 164 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964) (arbitration award vacated based on combination of prior relationship between arbitrator and parties as well as arbitrator’s actions during arbitration proceedings). In International Ins. Co. v. Schrager, 593 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), we stated as follows: “Any tribunal permitted by law to try cases and controversies must avoid even the appearance of partiality. Each case must be reviewed on its own facts and an arbitration award should be set aside where th…
-
RDC Golf OF Fla. I, Inc. v. Apostolicas, 925 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…rd when ... ” “ ‘[t]here was evident partiality by an arbitrator appointed as a neutral or corruption in any of the arbitrators or umpire or misconduct prejudicing the rights of any party.’ ” Deen, 814 So. 2d at 1068; see Int’l Ins. Co. v. Schrager, 593 So. 2d 1196, 1197 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); see also Weinger, 620 So. 2d at 1299 (holding that in arbitration cases, “it is clear that an arbitrator has an affirmative duty to disclose any dealings that might create an impression of possible bias”). However, an arbi…
-
Weinger v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 620 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…or has an affirmative duty to disclose any dealings that might create an impression of possible bias. See Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co., 393 U.S. 145, 89 S.Ct. 337, 21 L.Ed.2d 301 (1968); International Ins. Co. v. Schrager, 593 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA1992); Middlesex Mut. Ins. Co. v. Levine, 675 F. 2d 1197 (11th Cir.1982). Failure to disclose such an asso ciation undermines the appearance of propriety and the confidence of the fairness of the proceedings and requires the vacation of…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 393 U.S. 145 (U.S. 1968)
- Cassara v. Wofford, 55 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 1951)
- Tassinari v. Valery J. Loyer, 189 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Gaines Constr. Co. v. Carol City Utils., Inc., 164 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)