FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
HARVEY EBERHART, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Notice Of Accident cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal questions the correctness of an order granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and ordering the parties to proceed to arbitration on plaintiff’s uninsured motorist claim. The first point raised is that there were issues of fact regarding whether the plaintiff gave proper notice of the accident. The record reflects that the defense of notice was not raised by the pleadings and was not placed at issue before the trial court. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.110(d) and 1.120(c). The second point is that there were issues of fact as to whether or not the adverse vehicle was a hit and run vehicle as defined by the policy. The question of whether or not a hit and run vehicle was involved is a matter properly subject to determination in arbitration. Ebens v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 278 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Industrial Fire and Casualty Insurance Company v. Coquemard, 332 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Therefore, the order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and ordering the parties to proceed to arbitration is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Roslyn Mayor, 538 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…abated and discovery postponed while an issue of “coverage” of the initial claim is pending; she then correctly states that the involvement of a phantom vehicle in a UM case is not one of “coverage.” E.g., Florida Ins. Guar. Ass’n, Inc. v. Eberhart, 354 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). But Lovell clearly does not confine or limit the issues which precede determination of the initial claim to those of insurance coverage (which was the question actually involved in that case). Instead, the very basis of the Lovel…
Authorities Cited
- Ebens v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 278 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Indus. Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Coquemard, 332 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)