ROBERT MENDLEIN AND ELEANOR MENDLEIN, APPELLANTS,
v.
UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1973-05-15
No. 72-1374
Before PEARSON, CHARLES A. CARROLL and HAVERFIELD, JJ.
277 So. 2d 538 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1973) Negative Treatment
Cited by 17 cases

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.


Holding

The court held that the statute of limitations for an uninsured motorist claim begins to run on the date of the accident, not when conditions precedent to coverage are met.


Headnotes

[1] A cause of action for uninsured motorist coverage arises on the date of the accident with an uninsured motorist, not on the date conditions precedent in the insuring agre…

[2] The statute of limitations for an uninsured motorist claim begins to run as of the date of the accident.

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

Facts & Procedural History

An insured was injured in an accident with an uninsured motorist and later sought arbitration under her policy. The insurer filed for a declaratory de…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant-appellants seek review of a final summary judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellee.

On March 16, 1967, as a result of an automobile-pedestrian accident with one Mary Delaney, Eleanor Mendlein suffered personal injuries and subsequently filed suit against Mrs. Delaney. After repeated attempts to serve Mrs. Delaney, it was determined finally that she was no longer within the court’s jurisdiction and was uninsured at the time of the accident. Thereafter, on May 10, 1972 Mrs. Men-dlein and her husband filed a demand for arbitration1 with their insurance company, U. S. Fidelity and Guaranty Company, the *539appellee. Fidelity then filed an action for a declaratory decree seeking to determine the status of its uninsured motorist coverage under the appellants’ (Mr. and Mrs. Mendlein) insurance policy. Plaintiff-ap-pellee, Fidelity, contended that the 5 year statute of limitation had run, thus barring the claim under the uninsured motorist coverage and moved for summary judgment. The lower court granted the motion and this appeal ensued.

Appellants contend that the lower court erred in finding as a matter of law that the cause of action for an uninsured motorist claim arises on the date of an accident with an uninsured motorist, rather than on the date the conditions precedent contained in the insuring agreement are complied with.

Having found no Florida case exactly on point, we looked to other jurisdictions and discovered that the New York court in the case of In re Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, 40 Misc.2d 970, 244 N.Y.S.2d 154 (1963) was confronted with the same problem. The court held that New York’s six year statute of limitation relating to contract actions was applicable in determining the time for serving a demand for arbitration and the tortious act of the third party give rise to the rights under the contract. In other words, the statute of limitation begins to run as of the date of the accident and a demand for arbitration, absent in the insurance contract a time limitation for instituting arbitration proceedings, must be made within the applicable statutory period. See also Application of Travelers Indemnity Company, 226 N.Y.S.2d 16 (Sup.1962); Schleif v. Hardware Dealer’s Mutual Fire Insurance, 218 Tenn. 489, 404 S.W.2d 490 (1966); Price v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Company, 486 S.W.2d 721 (Tenn.1972). We adopt this view.

Turning to the case sub judice, the 5 year statute of limitation, F.S. § 95.11(3) F.S.A., which all parties agreed upon, is the applicable Statute. See Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company v. Mason, Fla.App. 1968, 210 So.2d 474. Appellant, Mrs. Mendlein was injured on March 16, 1967 and as of that date her rights arose under the contract. It follows then that appellants’ demand for arbitration on May 10, 1972 was untimely and barred by the 5 year statute of limitation which began to run as of the date of the accident with Mrs. Delaney in March 1967.

Further, many jurisdictions hold that where, as in the case at bar, either the insured or insurer upon disagreement as to liability or amount of payment may upon written demand have the matter settled by arbitration, the party desiring arbitration must demand such arbitration within a reasonable time. Andeen v. Country Mutual Insurance Company, 70 Ill.App.2d 357, 217 N.E.2d 814 (1966) and 45 C.J.S. Insurance. § 1113 (1946). This court has held that where a demand or some other act is required of a party as a condition precedent to his right to sue, the demand must be made in reasonable time, and this time, unless there be some special circumstances shown, will be fixed in analogy to the statute of limitation. Stoudenmire v. Florida Loan Company, Fla.App. 1960, 117 So.2d 500. We hold the same rule applicable not only to a parties right to sue, but a parties right to arbitration pursuant to an insurance contract as in the instant case.

Accordingly, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boynton, 486 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1986)
    …ortion of Sah-loff quoted by the district court, it is clear the Wisconsin court relied heavily on the notion that the relationship between insurer and insured arises in contract, not tort. See also Mendlein v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 277 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973) (district court did not dispute assumption of all parties that contract statute of limitations controlled the UM claim at issue). Also, while substantive defenses are available to the insurer, Winner, a procedural defense such as…
  • State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Kilbreath, 419 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 1982)
    …decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fifth District, in Kilbreath v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 401 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), which expressly and directly conflicts with Mendlein v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 277 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). We have jurisdiction.1 The determinative issue in Kilbreath is whether, in an action under an uninsured motorist insurance policy, the statute of limitations begins to run as of the date of the accident. We hold that it does. T…
  • Fladd v. Fortune Ins. Co., 530 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
    …st the tortfeasor. The statute of limitations thus begins to run on the date of the accident rather than on the date of compliance with the conditions precedent contained in the insuring agreement. Mendlein [v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 277 So. 2d 538 (Fla.3d DCA 1973) ]; Bocek v. Inter-Insurance Exchange of Chicago Motor Club, 175 Ind.App. 69, 369 N.E. 2d 1093 (1977). * * * * * * The uninsured motorist statute gives the insured the same cause of action against the insurer that he has against t…

Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw