Protective Insurance Co. v. Palma

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Protective Insurance Co. v. Palma

507 So. 2d 649, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1022, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7786

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 14, 1987

DocketNo. 86-2645

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 507 So. 2d 649 (Protective Insurance Co. v. Palma) 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

Protective Insurance Co. v. Palma, 507 So. 2d 649, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1022, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7786 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

We again follow our repeated holdings that the simple non-coverage question of whether the negligence of a hit-and-run, so-called “phantom” driver¹ contributed to the accident of which a UM insured complains is a question for the arbitrators, not the court. Ebens v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 278 So.2d 674 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Industrial Fire & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Coquemard, 332 So.2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Florida Ins. Guaranty Ass’n, Inc. v. Eberhart, 354 . So.2d 1265 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); see also Stack v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 507 So.2d 617 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

The cases upon which the appellant relies are distinguishable in that each involves a separate issue as to a disputed question of [650]*650coverage. E.g., Bradley v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 460 So.2d 981 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (question of whether another insured tortfeasor was involved, thus precluding UM coverage, see Bayles v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 483 So.2d 402 (Fla.1985)); Criterion Ins. Co. v. Amador, 479 So.2d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (same); Vigilant Ins. Co. v. Kelps, 372 So.2d 207, 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (question of whether second vehicle was hit-and-run or otherwise uninsured); see generally State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Glass, 421 So.2d 759 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).

Affirmed.

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

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

We again follow our repeated holdings that the simple non-coverage question of whether the negligence of a hit-and-run, so-called “phantom” driver¹ contributed to the accident of which a UM insured complains is a question for the arbitrators, not the court. Ebens v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 278 So.2d 674 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Industrial Fire & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Coquemard, 332 So.2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Florida Ins. Guaranty Ass’n, Inc. v. Eberhart, 354 . So.2d 1265 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); see also Stack v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 507 So.2d 617 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

The cases upon which the appellant relies are distinguishable in that each involves a separate issue as to a disputed question of [650]*650coverage. E.g., Bradley v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 460 So.2d 981 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (question of whether another insured tortfeasor was involved, thus precluding UM coverage, see Bayles v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 483 So.2d 402 (Fla.1985)); Criterion Ins. Co. v. Amador, 479 So.2d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (same); Vigilant Ins. Co. v. Kelps, 372 So.2d 207, 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (question of whether second vehicle was hit-and-run or otherwise uninsured); see generally State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Glass, 421 So.2d 759 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

507 So. 2d 649, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1022, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/protective-insurance-co-v-palma-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack