Arbitration & Mediation

Insurance Company Pays Insured's Fees for Disputing Location of Arbitration

By Christopher B. Hopkins, Esq.

A matter which began as an uninsured motorist arbitration claim turned into a lawsuit over attorney's fees because an insurance company claimed that arbitration should occur in New Hampshire, not Palm Beach, based upon where the insured "lives."

The Fourth District (Polen, Warner, Hazouri) provided nominal facts in Pawtucket Insurance Company, Sandra Lucate, Jean Camille aka Jean L. Herisson v. Michael and Anne Manganelli, so it is hard to determine if the insurance company had a valid position. The subject insurance policy stated that the insured's home county (where he "lives") was to be the location of the arbitration. The policy was issued in New Hampshire and the insurance company claimed that's where the insured listed his primary residence (we have no information one way or the other in the opinion). The insured, who had three residences (FL, NJ, NH), claimed Palm Beach and the local circuit court agreed. Again, no information on the basis for that argument.

Under Florida Statute 627.428 and 727.727(8), the insured moved for fees. The circuit court held that the insurance company "had no basis for insisting that arbitration take place in New Hampshire under the pertinent policy language" -- which is not necessarily supported by the prior paltry facts in the opinion. The court further found that fees are properly granted under the statutes when the insurance company requires something of the insured that could place coverage in jeopardy. Under the insurance statute, this fee penalty was inserted to "penalize a carrier for wrongfully causing the insured to resort to litigation to resolve a conflict when it was reasonably within the carrier's power to do so."

Full post as published by Florida Arbitration Law on March 09, 2009 (boomark / email).