However, "[t]here is no case for arbitration where the insurer disputes its liability, but does not dispute the amount of the losses." Couch, supra note 4, § 50:58 at 380; Charles Taylor Marine, Inc. v. State Farm Fire Cas. Co., 234 So.2d 400, 402 (Fla.App. 1970). Moreover, either Pacific believed it was dealing with Earthmovers, rather than the joint venture, in which case a contract was entered into with Earthmovers, or it believed it was contracting with the joint venture.

In each of them at least substantial compliance with the condition was found necessary and reasonable for the purpose of affording accuracy and fairness in determining the amount of loss. The cases are: Charles Taylor Marine, Inc. v. State Farm Fire Casualty Co., 234 So.2d 400 (Fla. App. 1970); Jonette Jewelry Co. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 105 R.I. 308, 251 A.2d 521 (1969); Batts Restaurant, Inc. v. Commercial Ins. Co. of Newark, 406 F.2d 118 (7th Cir. 1969); Kaplan v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 115 Ga. App. 365, 154 S.E.2d 726 (1967); Hammond v. Globe Indemnity Co., 193 So.2d 319 (La. App. 1966); Standard Accident Ins. Co. v. Ponsell's Drug Stores, Inc., 57 Del. 485, 202 A.2d 271 (1964); Weinstein v. General Accident Fire Life Assurance Co., 141 So.2d 318 (Fla.App. 1962); Green's Hotel, Inc. v. Commercial Casualty Ins. Co., 4 N.J. 517, 73 A.2d 349 (1950); and Pruzan v. National Surety Corp., 223 S.W.2d 8 (Mo. App. 1949). Other cases from various courts have considered similar claims arising under policy conditions nearly identical to that involved, and again the resonableness of the provision was upheld and substantial compliance required.

Certiorari denied. 234 So.2d 400. ERVIN, C.J., and ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL and BOYD, JJ., concur.