Bruno v. Travelers Ins. Co., 79-1620
| Decision Date | 05 August 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-1620,79-1620 |
| Citation | 386 So.2d 251 |
| Parties | Dominic BRUNO, Appellant, v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, a Foreign Corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Kuvin, Klingensmith & Lewis and R. Fred Lewis, Groland & Brown, Miami, for appellant.
High, Stack, Lazenby, Bender, Palahach & Lacasa and R. Scott Boundy, Miami, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and SCHWARTZ, JJ.
The appellee, Travelers Insurance Company, provided uninsured-underinsured protection to the appellant, Dominic Bruno. Bruno was involved in an automobile accident with one Darorre who was covered by a $25,000 liability policy with Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO). He thereafter almost simultaneously sued Darorre and GEICO in the circuit court, and demanded arbitration against Travelers on his underinsured claim that his damages exceeded the $25,000 GEICO limits. As permitted and required by Arrieta v. Volkswagen Ins. Co., 343 So.2d 918 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), 1 the UM arbitration proceeded before the resolution of the third party action. On July 28, 1978, the arbitrators rendered an award against Travelers finding Darorre negligent and fixing Bruno's damages at $17,500. Travelers took no affirmative action to challenge the award. On January 12, 1979, however, Bruno filed a petition for confirmation of the award in the Dade County Circuit Court. On February 7, 1979, he settled his case with Darorre and GEICO for precisely the same amount as the award, $17,500. In its response to the confirmation action, Travelers pointed out this admitted fact, and contended that the award should not be confirmed. The trial judge entered judgment for Travelers dismissing the petition for confirmation, and Bruno appeals. We affirm.
Section 627.727(1) Florida Statutes (1977) expressly states that UM coverage provides protection only to the extent that it is in excess of, and does not duplicate benefits available to the claimant from the tortfeasor. See Dickey v. Grange Mutual Casualty Co., 370 So.2d 1234 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). It has been held we think correctly that, under this provision, Bruno would have no right to recovery from Travelers simply because the damages awarded by the arbitrators were less than the limits of the GEICO policy, which were thus potentially "available" to him. Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Lang, 387 So.2d 976 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Arrieta v. Volkswagen Ins. Co., supra, 343 So.2d at 921 (dictum). It is all the more certain that he is entitled to no underinsured benefits in the present, a fortiori situation in which he has actually received all of his assessed damages from the tortfeasor. See Jones v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of Rhode Island, 368 So.2d 1289 (Fla.1979); Dewberry v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 363 So.2d 1077 (Fla.1978); State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Napoli, 380 So.2d 1325 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Hall v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 376 So.2d 1183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). On the merits, the judgment below was therefore obviously correct.
Even Bruno does not dispute this conclusion. Relying on Travelers Ins. Co. v. Allen, 356 So.2d 1287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 364 So.2d 893 (Fla.1978) and Carter v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 224 So.2d 802 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969), however, he argues that the insurer's failure to move to modify or vacate the award within the 90-day period provided by the arbitration code, Sections 682.13-.14 Florida Statutes (1977), requires that the award be confirmed. We disagree. Unlike the situations in Allen and Carter, the issues now raised by Travelers are not ones which inhere in the award itself. Rather, they concern the contention that, by virtue of extrinsic facts and the terms of its policy and the Florida law, the company is not contractually or statutorily obliged to pay the award. These are questions which only the courts, and not the arbitrators, have the authority to resolve. In this situation, the controlling decision is American Fidelity Fire Ins. Co. v. Richardson, 189 So.2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), cert. denied, 200...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Meade, 80-854
...5 5 Questions concerning disputed coverage are generally not proper subjects for arbitration in any event. 6 In Bruno v. Travelers Insurance Co., 386 So.2d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), the court allowed the defending insurance company to raise in a confirmation proceeding the defense that the un......
-
Atencio v. U.S. Sec. Ins. Co.
...Co., 423 So.2d 908 (Fla.1982); State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Wingate, 604 So.2d 578 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Bruno v. Travelers Ins. Co., 386 So.2d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Applying these rules, the order under review is reversed and the cause remanded for further consistent proceedings incl......
-
Mayo v. CAPITAL ASSURANCE CO., INC., 3D02-2650.
...for the amount of the verdict. Thus, UM coverage was unavailable and the insurer not liable in any event. See Bruno v. Travelers Ins. Co., 386 So.2d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Dickey v. Grange Mut. Cas. Co., 370 So.2d 1234 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); see also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Silow, 714 So.2d 647 ......
-
Cartwright v. Allstate Ins. Co., 83-612
...liability coverage. Government Employees Insurance Company v. Lang, 387 So.2d 976 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Bruno v. Travelers Insurance Company, 386 So.2d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Dickey v. Grange Mutual Casualty Company, 370 So.2d 1234 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company......