FRED MCKINNEY, APPELLANT,
v.
AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA, A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court affirmed a lower court's decision upholding an arbitration award. The plaintiff argued the arbitrator failed to apply Florida law, but the court found the award was supported by the plaintiff's contributory negligence, making the specific legal question moot.
No, the arbitration award was proper because the plaintiff was contributorily negligent, which supported the arbitrator's decision regardless of whether the arbitrator correctly applied the Guest Statute.
“It is sufficient to point out that an examination of the record clearly supports the arbitrator's award upon the basis of contributory negligence of the plaintiff.”
This quote establishes the primary reason for the court's decision to affirm the arbitration award.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff sued to vacate an arbitration award under an uninsured motorist clause, alleging the arbitrator disregarded Florida law. The arbitrator'…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Guest Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiff brought a suit m chancery to vacate an award of an arbitrator under an allegation that the arbitrator failed to follow the substantive law of Florida in reaching his decision. The trial judge entered a final decree which found for the defendant, insurance company, and held the arbitration award proper.
The thrust of the plaintiff’s appeal is that if the arbitrator had recognized the proper rule of law he should have found for the plaintiff. The function of the arbitrator in this case was to determine if the plaintiff was “legally entitled to recover” damages under an uninsured motorist clause of an automobile liability insurance contract written by the defendant, as the insurer, for the plaintiff, as the insured. The Guest Statute, § 320.59 Fla.Stat., F.S.A., was applicable to the conclusion reached by the arbitrator; however, we do not find it necessary to discuss or decide the question of whether gross negligence was proved under any reason*54able view of the evidence which the arbitrator may have taken. It is sufficient to point out that an examination of the record clearly supports the arbitrator’s award upon the basis of contributory negligence of the plaintiff. See Henley v. Carter, Fla. 1953, 63 So.2d 192, 44 A.L.R.2d 1339.
Because of the above holding, we do not find it necessary to determine the availability of the remedy sought by the plaintiff in the circuit court.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Candreva, 497 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…overage under the policy, are issues of fact to be settled in the arbitration proceedings. See Ebens v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 278 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); McKinney v. American Casualty Company of Reading Pennsylvania, 171 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). Surely, if it is the arbitrators’ province to determine whether the uninsured tortfeasor was negligent, it must also be within their province to determine whether he was grossly negligent, thus bringing the case out of the immuni…
Authorities Cited
- Henley v. Carter, 63 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 1953)