MARY A. GREEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND MARY A. GREEN, AS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND OF CHERYL GREEN, A MINOR, JOSIE VANGATES WILLIAMS, INDIVIDUALLY, AND JOSIE VANGATES WILLIAMS, AS NEXT FRIEND OF GLADYS VANGATES, AND EARL VANGATES, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, A MARYLAND CORPORATION, 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.
The appellants sought uninsured motorist coverage under their insurance policy after a 1961 automobile accident. The insurer filed a declaratory decree action and obtained a temporary injunction halting arbitration proceedings. The court reversed the summary judgment, finding that genuine issues of material fact regarding waiver and estoppel precluded summary disposition.
The court reversed the summary judgment, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the affirmative defenses of waiver and estoppel that precluded summary disposition. The court directed that the case be remanded for determination of whether the motorist was insured or uninsured, and thereafter for determination of liability and damages.
“It is essential to coverage under the policy that the status of the motorist, as to uninsured or insured, be established.”
Establishes the foundational requirement that the court must first determine whether the motorist was insured or uninsured before addressing coverage disputes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn August 1961, the appellants were involved in an automobile accident with an uninsured motorist named Pruett at Carol City Shopping Center in Opa Lo…
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 Arbitration Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a summary final decree. From the record on appeal, it appears that in 1961 the appellants were involved in an automobile accident with an alleged uninsured motorist. The appel*199lant, Josie Vangates Williams, through her lawyer, brought the accident to the attention of her insurance carrier, the appellee herein, in the spring of 1962, as follows:
“May 29, 1962
“Certified Mail #876274
“U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Company
7950 Biscayne Boulevard
Miami 38, Florida
“Attn: Claim Department
“Re: Claim of Rachel Sneed, Van Gates, et al., D/A: 8/27/61
“Gentlemen:
“The undersigned represents the captioned individuals who were in an auto accident on the date above indicated at the Carol City Shopping Center in Opa Locka, Florida. Previously they had been represented by Attorneys Richard Morton and Charles William Stone of Ft. Pierce, Florida.
“We are advised by the Financial Responsibility Department of the Insurance Commissioner’s Office that the potential defendant in this case, Mr. Pruett, is financially without means, and we have been unable to determine the name of Mr. Pruett’s liability insurance carrier, for the reason that he had none protecting him at the time of the accident out of which this claim arose.
“Accordingly, we are requesting a conference for the purpose of determining the damages to be paid to our clients by virtue of the liability insurance policy protecting them written by your company, which said policy is numbered AF-4096705, covering the period from 7/3/61 to 7/3/62. Under coverage Letter “G”, we request either a conference for the purpose of determining damages to my clients, or that the carrier authorize us to bring suit against the tort feasor immediately. “Your prompt attention to this matter would certainly be appreciated.
Very truly yours,
ALFRED D. BIELEY”
The insurance company notified her lawyer that they were proceeding to investigate the matter and did, in fact, investigate it until December, 1962. Thereafter, the appellant, Josie Vangates Williams, receiving no further word from the company, advised them through her lawyer that she would commence arbitration proceedings pursuant to the terms of the policy. The company acknowledged receipt of such advice, and the matter proceeded to arbitration and was set for final hearing on June 29, 1964. On June 12, 1964, the instant action was commenced in the trial court by the- company (as plaintiff) filing a declaratory decree action to determine coverage and- securing a temporary injunction enjoining the arbitration proceedings. Thereafter, following the matter becoming at issue and the appellants-defendants having filed affirmative defenses of waiver and estoppel, the matter came on for summary final decree and resulted in the final order here under review. The appellants urge as error on this appeal the failure of the chancellor to sustain the affirmative defenses of estoppel or waiver.
We find error, and reverse, and return the matter to the chancellor for determination of the issues as made by the pleadings. See: Emile v. First National Bank of Miami, Fla.App.1961, 126 So.2d 305; Harrison v. McCourtney, Fla.App.1963, 148 So. 2d 53; Skaf’s Jewelers, Inc. v. Antwerp Import Corp., Fla.App. 1963, 150 So.2d 260.
It is essential to coverage under the policy that the status of the motorist, as to uninsured or insured, be established. Thereafter, once this issue is resolved, it will be within the jurisdiction of the circuit court to determine the issue of liability and damages. See: Cruger v. Allstate Insurance Co., Fla.App.1963, 162 So.2d 690; Zeagler v. Commercial Union Insurance Co. of New York, Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 616; Ramirez v. Hardware Dealers Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Fla.App.1964, 170 So.2d 317.
*200Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the summary final decree here under review is hereby reversed, and this matter is returned to the chancellor for further proceedings.
Reversed with directions.
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)…72 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 deter…
-
Moore v. Allstate Ins. Co., 553 So. 2d 1368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…n circuit court were properly resolvable by arbitration, as discussed infra, the court was clearly empowered to resolve all rights of the parties relating to coverage, liability, [*1371] damages, etc. See Green v. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co., 181 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). As it would have been improper to adjudicate the rights of the parties in a piecemeal fashion, it would seem equally improper to allow fees to be recovered piecemeal. The case law cited by the majority is inapplicable. State Far…
-
Vigilant Ins. Co. v. Kelps, 372 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…72 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 deter…
Authorities Cited
- 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)
- Emile v. First Nat'l Bank OF Miami, 126 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Harrison v. McCOURTNEY, 148 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Skaf's Jewelers, Inc. v. Antwerp Imp. Corp., 150 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Ramirez v. Hardware Dealers Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 170 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)