Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Whitaker
| Decision Date | 30 January 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. K--221,K--221 |
| Citation | 218 So.2d 198 |
| Parties | GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Carl F. WHITAKER, Diane Whitaker and Sidney Whitaker, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Beggs, Lane, Daniel, Gaines & Davis, Pensacola, for appellant.
Campbell & Andrews, Defuniak Springs, for appellees.
The defendant, Government Employees Insurance Company, has appealed from an order denying its motion to compel arbitration.
The sole point as stated by appellant is: Does refusal by one of two uninsured motorist carriers on a particular risk to pay the full amount demanded by the insured waive the arbitration provisions of an uninsured motorist policy?
The Whitaker children, while passengers in the Ellis automobile, were injured in an accident caused by the negligence of an uninsured motorist driving an uninsured automobile. When it became apparent that the Ellises would exhaust their uninsured motorist coverage, Carl Whitaker, father of the Whitaker children, on August 2, 1966, sought reimbursement from his own carrier, Government Employees Insurance Company. Medical records, reports and the entire Whitaker file were made available to Government Employees' adjuster who, on July 13, 1967, advised the Whitakers that their carrier would share their claim equally with Continental Insurance Company (Ellis's carrier) but it would not make any unilateral payment of any kind on the claim. The adjuster from the beginning had been advised that the Whitakers were not making a claim against Continental because the Ellises would absorb its entire coverage. The Whitakers' only contact with its carrier was through the adjuster who refused to change his position. On January 3, 1968, this suit for declaratory judgment was filed. Government Employees immediately moved to compel arbitration. The order denying that motion is the subject of this appeal.
The appellant takes the position that since it did not deny coverage but merely refused to meet the settlement demand of the insured, it has not waived its right to arbitration under the policy. It contends that this case is controlled by the holding in Netherlands Insurance Company v. Moore 1 wherein this Court held that the insurer was entitled to an order compelling arbitration. The opinion of this Court, authored by Judge Wigginton, pointed out that the original complaint alleged simply a common law cause of action based upon a contract of insurance and did not raise the issue of coverage. After noting that the Extent of coverage is a judicial question which may be decided only by courts of competent jurisdiction, we held that arbitration under the uninsured motorist clause is restricted to the issues of (1) the insured's right to recover from the uninsured motorist, and (2) the amount of damages suffered.
Appellant concedes that under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baxter v. Royal Indem. Co., 44842
...on a carrier's insistence on contract arbitration. (4) Finally, petitioners allege conflict with Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Whitaker, 218 So.2d 198 (1st Dist.Ct.Ct.App.1969), a case which did involve an interpretation of the uninsured motorist clause of an insurance contract. In ......
-
Baxter v. Royal Indem. Co.
...Insurance, § 808, et seq., and the numerous cases cited therein. See also this court's opinion in Government Employees Insurance Company v. Whitaker, Fla.App., 218 So.2d 198, holding inter alia that an uninsured motorist coverage carrier waives its right to arbitration by its failure or ref......
-
Harris v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 72--730
...(Fla.App.1960), 117 So.2d 45.4 (Fla.App.1967), 197 So.2d 329.5 (Fla.1973), 277 So.2d 773.6 (Fla.App.1966), 189 So.2d 224.7 (Fla.App.1969), 218 So.2d 198.8 See, § 627.428, Fla.Stat.1971, F.S.A.9 By way of epilogue we comment here on one other aspect of the posture of this case. In addition t......
-
Aristonico Infante v. Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co., 77-2005
...motorist coverage, it cannot rely upon the Infantes' settlement with Lumbermen's to avoid coverage. Cf. Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Whitaker, 218 So.2d 198 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969); Reserve Insurance Company v. Pollock, 270 So.2d 469 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); and Liberty Mutual Insurance Com......