McKinney v. American Casualty Co. of Reading

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McKinney v. American Casualty Co. of Reading

171 So. 2d 53

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 26, 1965

DocketNo. 64-456

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 171 So. 2d 53 (McKinney v. American Casualty Co. of Reading) 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

McKinney v. American Casualty Co. of Reading, 171 So. 2d 53 (Fla. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff brought a suit m chancery to vacate an award of an arbitrator under an allegation that the arbitrator failed to follow the substantive law of Florida in reaching his decision. The trial judge entered a final decree which found for the defendant, insurance company, and held the arbitration award proper.

The thrust of the plaintiff’s appeal is that if the arbitrator had recognized the proper rule of law he should have found for the plaintiff. The function of the arbitrator in this case was to determine if the plaintiff was “legally entitled to recover” damages under an uninsured motorist clause of an automobile liability insurance contract written by the defendant, as the insurer, for the plaintiff, as the insured. The Guest Statute, § 320.59 Fla.Stat., F.S.A., was applicable to the conclusion reached by the arbitrator; however, we do not find it necessary to discuss or decide the question of whether gross negligence was proved under any reason[54]*54able view of the evidence which the arbitrator may have taken. It is sufficient to point out that an examination of the record clearly supports the arbitrator’s award upon the basis of contributory negligence of the plaintiff. See Henley v. Carter, Fla. 1953, 63 So.2d 192, 44 A.L.R.2d 1339.

Because of the above holding, we do not find it necessary to determine the availability of the remedy sought by the plaintiff in the circuit court.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff brought a suit m chancery to vacate an award of an arbitrator under an allegation that the arbitrator failed to follow the substantive law of Florida in reaching his decision. The trial judge entered a final decree which found for the defendant, insurance company, and held the arbitration award proper.

The thrust of the plaintiff’s appeal is that if the arbitrator had recognized the proper rule of law he should have found for the plaintiff. The function of the arbitrator in this case was to determine if the plaintiff was “legally entitled to recover” damages under an uninsured motorist clause of an automobile liability insurance contract written by the defendant, as the insurer, for the plaintiff, as the insured. The Guest Statute, § 320.59 Fla.Stat., F.S.A., was applicable to the conclusion reached by the arbitrator; however, we do not find it necessary to discuss or decide the question of whether gross negligence was proved under any reason[54]*54able view of the evidence which the arbitrator may have taken. It is sufficient to point out that an examination of the record clearly supports the arbitrator’s award upon the basis of contributory negligence of the plaintiff. See Henley v. Carter, Fla. 1953, 63 So.2d 192, 44 A.L.R.2d 1339.

Because of the above holding, we do not find it necessary to determine the availability of the remedy sought by the plaintiff in the circuit court.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 So. 2d 53, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckinney-v-american-casualty-co-of-reading-fladistctapp-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack