Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Classie

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Classie

396 So. 2d 1204, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19282

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 21, 1981

DocketNo. 80-139

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 396 So. 2d 1204 (Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Classie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Classie, 396 So. 2d 1204, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19282 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

BASKIN, Judge.

Only the court may determine issues concerning the existence of uninsured motorist coverage, Vigilant Insurance Co. v. Kelps, 372 So.2d 207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), that is, the insurance status of the allegedly negligent motorist. Arbitrators may determine whether the facts of the case disclose a “right or basis for recovery under the coverage provided for in the policy”, Ebens v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 278 So.2d 674, 675 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), that is, the factual merit of the claim. Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Mirth, 333 So.2d 545 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); see also Allstate Insurance Co. v. Langston, 358 So.2d 1387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). The trial court correctly ruled in accordance with these principles; we therefore affirm [1205]*1205the Final Judgment which established uninsured motorist coverage and ordered arbitration proceedings as to proximate cause of the injury.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BASKIN, Judge.

Only the court may determine issues concerning the existence of uninsured motorist coverage, Vigilant Insurance Co. v. Kelps, 372 So.2d 207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), that is, the insurance status of the allegedly negligent motorist. Arbitrators may determine whether the facts of the case disclose a “right or basis for recovery under the coverage provided for in the policy”, Ebens v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 278 So.2d 674, 675 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), that is, the factual merit of the claim. Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Mirth, 333 So.2d 545 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); see also Allstate Insurance Co. v. Langston, 358 So.2d 1387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). The trial court correctly ruled in accordance with these principles; we therefore affirm [1205]*1205the Final Judgment which established uninsured motorist coverage and ordered arbitration proceedings as to proximate cause of the injury.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

396 So. 2d 1204, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartford-accident-indemnity-co-v-classie-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack