Meade v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co.
| Decision Date | 09 December 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 61418,61418 |
| Parties | Terry MEADE, Petitioner, v. LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Seymour H. Rowland, Jr., and Victor J. Musleh of Musleh, Piccin, Atkins & Krehl, Ocala, for petitioner.
Leslie King O'Neal of Markel, Scott, McDonough & O'Neal, Orlando, for respondent.
The petitioner, Terry Meade, seeks review of the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal reported as Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Meade, 404 So.2d 1141 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), which we find expressly conflicts with Travelers Insurance Co. v. Allen, 356 So.2d 1287 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 364 So.2d 893 (Fla.1978). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.Const. The issue is whether, in an arbitration confirmation action filed in circuit court, an insurer may allege as a defense that the arbitration award exceeded applicable policy limits under circumstances where (1) the policy limits were not in issue in the arbitration and (2) the award was not challenged by the insurer within the ninety-day time limit prescribed by the Florida Arbitration Code, sections 682.13 and 682.14, Florida Statutes (1979). We hold that the policy limits could properly be raised as a defense in the circuit court confirmation action.
We find it necessary to set forth certain relevant facts to clearly delineate the issue decided in this case. Petitioner Meade and respondent insurer disagreed as to the amount of Meade's damages in a claim under his uninsured motorist coverage. The parties submitted the damages issue to arbitration, pursuant to chapter 682, Florida Statutes (1979). The arbitration panel award, issued December 27, 1979, found that Meade's damages were "$16,709.50 plus taxable costs." In January, 1980, the insurer tendered a check for $10,000, the policy limits, which Meade refused to accept. No further action was taken by either party until Meade filed a complaint in circuit court on April 2, 1980, seeking confirmation of the arbitration award. The insurer attempted to assert as a defense in the confirmation suit the $10,000 policy limit on Meade's uninsured motorist coverage, arguing that the arbitration award could not exceed that amount. The trial court, in enforcing the arbitration award in Meade's favor, refused to consider the policy-limits defense because the insurance company had failed to seek vacation or modification of the arbitration award within the ninety-day period prescribed by sections 682.13 and 682.14. In so holding, the trial court relied on Travelers Insurance Co. v. Allen, which held that a party to an arbitration proceeding who fails to timely seek vacation or modification of an award pursuant to sections 682.13 and 682.14 cannot raise the defense of excessive award in a confirmation suit.
The district court reversed, holding that the ninety-day rule contained in sections 682.13 and 682.14 is not applicable where an issue disputed in a confirmation proceeding was not submitted to an arbitration panel. In so holding, the district court distinguished Allen, finding it was not applicable under the facts of this case. We approve the decision of the district court, but find that Allen is not distinguishable from this case.
Petitioner contends that sections 682.13 and 682.14 require the insurer to file a motion to vacate, modify, or correct the arbitration award of damages within ninety days when the amount of damages awarded exceeds policy limits. Petitioner argues that any disagreement as to applicable policy limits is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Paradise Plaza Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Reinsurance Corp. of New York
...holding that appraisal does not waive policy defenses by permitting liability determination after arbitration); Meade v. Lumbermens Mut. Casualty Co., 423 So.2d 908 (Fla.1982)(same); Santiesteban, 287 So.2d at 665 (Fla.1973)(same); Montalvo, 643 So.2d at 648 (same); Richardson, 189 So.2d at......
-
Three Palms Pointe v. State Farm Firm and Cas.
...1021, 1025-26 (Fla. 2002); State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Licea, 685 So.2d 1285, 1287-88 (Fla. 1996); Meade v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., 423 So.2d 908, 910 (Fla.1982) (holding that insured could challenge policy limits after "arbitration" award because issue was not raised to pan......
-
Shultz v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co.
...Policy for UIM coverage which was not decided by the arbitrators," the trial court cited Harris's citation to Meade v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., 423 So.2d 908 (Fla.1982), which advanced a similar The trial court also stated: "The scope of the result of the arbitration award is consist......
-
Cuevas v. Potamkin Dodge, Inc.
...111 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), cert. denied, 378 So.2d 346 (Fla.1979), we reject that position on the authority of Meade v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., 423 So.2d 908 (Fla.1982), overruling Travelers Inc. Co. v. Allen, 356 So.2d 1287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 364 So.2d 893 (Fla.1978), ......
-
Chapter 2 - § 2.8 • RESOLUTION OF UM|UIM CLAIMS — ISSUES INVOLVING ARBITRATION AND LITIGATION
...court's judgment, the court of appeals had relied upon a Florida Supreme Court decision, Meade v. Lumberman's Mutual Casualty Co., 423 So.2d 908 (Fla. 1982). In Meade, the court had held that since insurance policy limits were not an issue before an arbitration panel, an insurer was not pre......