Security Insurance Co. of Hartford v. Sapienza

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Security Insurance Co. of Hartford v. Sapienza

596 So. 2d 84, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 1720, 1992 WL 32792

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 26, 1992

DocketNo. 91-1645

StatusPublished

This text of 596 So. 2d 84 (Security Insurance Co. of Hartford v. Sapienza) 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

Security Insurance Co. of Hartford v. Sapienza, 596 So. 2d 84, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 1720, 1992 WL 32792 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

LETTS, Judge.

Under an automobile liability policy for “garagekeepers” which did not provide for arbitration, the trial court ordered arbitration. We reverse.

This is the second time this case has been before us. On the first occasion, we held that although the policy contained no uninsured motorist provision, compliance with section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1987) was required. Sapienza v. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford, 543 So.2d 845 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 557 So.2d 867 (Fla.1989). Upon remand, the trial court ordered the parties to proceed to arbitration, and once again, we find reversible error.

The policy in question does not contain an arbitration clause and, under the facts of this case, section 627.727 does not authorize arbitration.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

GUNTHER and FARMER, JJ., concur.

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