State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Wise, 2
| Decision Date | 19 March 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,2 |
| Parties | STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Denise Berg WISE, Defendant/Appellee. CA-"CIV 5664. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (State Farm) appeals from the superior court judgment confirming an arbitration award in favor of Denise Berg Wise (Wise) under the uninsured motorist provisions of her State Farm policy. Wise was awarded $6,000 compensatory damages, $7,000 punitive damages and $5,200 in attorney's fees. State Farm challenges the award on the following grounds: 1) the arbitration panel exceeded its authority in awarding punitive damages (State Farm does not appeal the award of compensatory damages); 2) the policy does not provide coverage for punitive damages; and 3) the trial court erred both in its award of attorney's fees and in the amount awarded. We disagree and affirm.
State Farm argues that the arbitration award should not have been confirmed because the arbitrators exceeded their powers. A.R.S. § 12-"1512(A)(3). The arbitrators' authority is defined by the agreement from which their power to act is taken. Smitty's Super-Valu, Inc. v. Pasqualetti, 22 Ariz.App. 178, 525 P.2d 309 (1974); Migneault v. United Services Auto Association, 21 Ariz.App. 397, 519 P.2d 1162 (1974); Allstate Insurance Company v. Cook, 21 Ariz.App. 313, 519 P.2d 66 (1974). Arbitrators have authority to decide questions of fact and questions of law. Verdex Steel and Construction Co. v. Board of Supervisors of Maricopa County, 19 Ariz.App. 547, 509 P.2d 240 (1973).
Our review of an arbitration award is limited. We presume that the arbitrators have decided only those issues contained in the submission agreement, and the award is binding unless we find that the arbitration extended to matters beyond the scope of the issues submitted under the parties' agreement. Smitty's Super-Valu, Inc. v. Pasqualetti, supra.
The uninsured motorist provision of Wise's policy with State Farm defined the questions to be decided by the arbitrators:
Deciding Fault and Amount
Two questions must be decided by agreement between the insured and us:
1. Is the insured legally entitled to collect damages from the owner or driver of the uninsured motor vehicle or underinsured motor vehicle; and
2. If so, in what amount?
Citing Allstate Insurance Co. v. Cook, supra, State Farm argues that the arbitrators did not have the authority to make a punitive damage award because that necessarily involved a determination of coverage. State Farm contends that it is not the right to recover damages from the insurance company which is being arbitrated but the right to recover damages from the uninsured motorist. We disagree. As the arbitration award indicates, the parties stipulated to "the fact of policy coverage and the uninsured status of the adverse driver." Therefore, the remaining question to be decided by arbitration was the amount of damages.
We also disagree with State Farm's statement of Wise's rights concerning her uninsured motorist coverage. The purpose of the financial responsibility laws is to provide a fund to compensate victims of automobile accidents for their bodily injuries. Cassel v. Schacht, 140 Ariz. 495, 683 P.2d 294 (1984). The primary purpose is to provide "security against uncompensated damages arising from operation of motor vehicles on our highways." Schecter v. Killingsworth, 93 Ariz. 273, 285, 380 P.2d 136, 144 (1963). Under Wise's policy, State Farm agreed to "pay damages for bodily injury an insured is legally entitled to collect from the owner or driver of an uninsured motor vehicle." (Emphasis original.) Wise is entitled to recover, under the uninsured motorist provision of her policy, damages she would have been able to recover if the uninsured motorist had maintained a policy of liability insurance. Transportation Insurance Company v. Wade, 106 Ariz. 269, 475 P.2d 253 (1970). As in any standard liability policy, State Farm's failure to specifically exclude punitive damages from its uninsured motorist coverage makes it liable for punitive damages. Price v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 108 Ariz. 485, 502 P.2d 522 (1972). Such a specific exclusion for punitive damages would have been valid and enforceable. Cassel v. Schact, supra. Without such an exclusion, however, the arbitrators were within their authority in awarding punitive damages, and their award is binding against State Farm by the terms of their agreement and Arizona law.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Wilson
...construed an identical clause in an uninsured motorist (UM) provision to extend such coverage. See State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Wise, 150 Ariz. 16, 721 P.2d 674 (Ct.App.1986). We granted review to resolve the conflict. See Rule 23, Ariz.R.Civ.App.P., 17B A.R.S. We have jurisdiction pursuan......
-
State v. Patterson
...expressly excluding punitive damages does not render insurer liable for punitive damages), with State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Wise, 150 Ariz. 16, 17, 721 P.2d 674, 675 (App.1986) (finding that the absence of an insurance provision expressly excluding punitive damages makes insurer liable fo......
-
Canon School Dist. No. 50 v. W.E.S. Const. Co., Inc., CV-93-0399-PR
...750 (App.1989); City of Cottonwood v. Fann Contracting, Inc., 179 Ariz. 185, 877 P.2d 284 (App.1994); State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Wise, 150 Ariz. 16, 721 P.2d 674 (App.1986), disapproved on other grounds, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 162 Ariz. 251, 782 P.2d 727 (1989). No......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 1
...public policy purpose of punitive damages. Wilson primarily responds that the underinsured endorsement is ambiguous. Wilson also argues that Wise is controlling, and that Wise is a clear and logical extension of Price. He also points out that any distinctions between liability coverage on t......