Southeast Title & Ins. Co. v. Austin
| Decision Date | 13 September 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 35707,35707 |
| Citation | 202 So.2d 179 |
| Parties | SOUTHEAST TITLE AND INSURANCE COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Arkus G. AUSTIN, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Preddy, Hadded & Kutner, Miami, for appellant.
Kneale, Roberts, Kneale & Starkweather, Miami, for appellee.
The appellant in this case controverts a summary final decree for plaintiff, the appellee Austin, in a suit to confirm a $6,000 arbitration award on a claim against the appellant insurance company under a policy for uninsured motorist coverage.
The appellant company claimed a right of set-off in the sum of $2,749, the amount of a workmen's compensation award to insured in connection with the same accident. The claim of set-off was based upon a provision of the policy that 'any loss payable * * * shall be reduced by the amount paid * * * under any workmen's compensation law. * * * ' The trial court in this case rejected appellant's claim of set-off under this provision. The court referred to and relied upon Sections 627.0851(1) and 324.021(7), F.S., 1 which require in substance that automobile liability insurance policies in this state shall provide uninsured motorist coverage in a minimum amount of $10,000, i.e. in an amount 'not less than limits described in Sec. 324.021(7) * * * for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles. * * *'
Appellant contends that the court's construction and application of the statutes constitutes an impairment of the obligation of its contract and an infringement of other constitutional rights, 2 and direct appeal to this Court is taken from the decree adjudicating those issues. 3
We conclude that the decision in this case, based upon the reasoning in Standard Accident Ins. Co. v. Gavin, 4 properly disposed of the issues presented. While factual distinctions may be made between the cases, both rest upon the simple proposition that the statutory limitations control and become a part of contracts subject to their terms. To the extent, therefore, that the appellant's policy purports to reduce liability for any loss within the statutory minimum required coverage, it is ineffective and there did not come into existence any contractual obligation subject to impairment. The legislative prescription of a minimum 'coverage' obviously contemplates an Effective coverage for losses up to the specified amount, the express statutory intent being to provide that protection to exactly the same extent that a policyholder is 'legally entitled to recover damages' from a third party uninsured owner, no more, no less. The provision for setoffs, or for a showing of unreimbursed loss rather than legal damages within the minimum amount, is in our opinion in conflict with both express and implied requirements of the law.
Cross assignments of error, directed to the court's computation of interest from the date of award rather than the date of accident, present no grounds for relief. The contrary decision on this point in the Gavin case, supra, appears to be in error under the consistent rule of our decisions denying interest in personal injury cases until entry of judgment. 5 Their rationale appears to be applicable in this proceeding which, although based on contract of insurance, is essentially one for the recovery of tort damages.
Affirmed.
BARNS, PAUL D., Justice (Ret.), (Specially concurring).
This is an appeal from a final judgment in an action in debt based on an award by an arbitrator, commenced by filing in the lower court an Application to Confirm the Award and Entry of Judgment which is basically an action at law, in debt. This procedure is authorized by Chapter 57, F.S.A.
The plaintiff's claim before the arbitrator was against the appellant on a contract of indemnity against loss or injury by reason of the negligence of another and provided for set-off for compensation paid the insured under the workmen's law (as stated above...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leist v. Auto Owners Ins. Co.
...of America v. Jones, (1970) 286 Ala. 606, 243 So.2d 736; Williams v. Buckelew, (1970) (La.App.) 246 So.2d 58; Southeast Title & Insurance Co. v. Austin, (1970) (Fla.) 202 So.2d 179. See also, Couch, Insurance 2d § 82.1:12 (Cum.Supp. The fear of so-called double recovery voiced by Auto-Owner......
-
Brunmeier v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 43379
...106, 393 P.2d 651 (1964); Standard Accident Ins. Co. v. Gavin, 184 So.2d 229, 24 A.L.R.3d 1359 (Fla.App.1966); Southeast Title & Ins. Co. v. Austin, 202 So.2d 179 (Fla.1967); Stephens v. Allied Mutual Ins. Co., 182 Neb. 562, 571, 156 N.W.2d 133, 139 (1968); Carter v. St. Paul Fire & Marine ......
-
GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Gonzalez
... ... contracts.”) (citing cases); Southeast Title & ... Ins. Co. v. Austin, 202 So.2d 179, 180 (Fla. 1967) ... (“The legislative ... ...
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Toro
...Co., 105 Ill.App.2d 408, 244 N.E.2d 827 (Ct.App.1969), aff'd, 48 Ill.2d 1, 269 N.E.2d 295 (Ill.Sup.Ct.1970); Southeast Title & Ins. Co. v. Austin, 202 So.2d 179 (Fla.Sup.Ct.1967); Durant v. Motor Vehicle Acc. Indemnif. Corp., 20 A.D.2d 242, 246 N.Y.S.2d 548 (App.Div.1964), mod. on other gro......