JAMES L. WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed dismissal of uninsured motorist coverage claim where insurer demanded arbitration after suit commenced, but reversed award of attorneys' fees because the insured did not prevail.
An insurer's demand for arbitration after commencement of an action, where the insured has not sought arbitration, properly supports dismissal of the coverage action.
[1] An insured who has not sought arbitration is not justified in bringing an action against an insurer merely because the insurer demands arbitration after the action is com…
[2] Attorneys' fees under Fla. …
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams sued State Farm for coverage under an uninsured motorist clause. State Farm demanded arbitration after the action was commenced, though Willi…
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 Insurance Coverage Dispute cases and more on FLexlaw
The trial judge properly dismissed an action against the appellant’s insurer asserting coverage under the uninsured motorist clause, where the insurer had, after commencement of the action, demanded arbitration.1 The insured had not sought arbitration. The case differs from Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Winfree, Fla.App.2d 1971, 252 So.2d 388, in that there a demand for arbitration had been made by the insured but was ignored by the insurance company. Consequently, those plaintiffs were justified in bringing an action where this plaintiff was not.
On cross-appeal, the insurance company correctly asserts that attorneys’ fees for plaintiff’s attorneys were improperly awarded. The insured did not prevail in the action so the statutory requirement was not met.2
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
PIERCE, C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.