From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Security Ins. Co. Hartford v. Sapienza

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Apr 29, 1992
596 So. 2d 84 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

Opinion

No. 91-1645.

February 26, 1992. Motions for Rehearing or Certification and Rehearing En Banc Denied April 29, 1992.

Appeal of a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Broward County; Geoffrey D. Cohen, Judge.

Kenneth R. Drake, Touby Smith DeMahy Drake, P.A., Miami, for appellant.

Mark M. McCollem, Chidnese McCollem, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.


Under an automobile liability policy for "garagekeepers" which did not provide for arbitration, the trial court ordered arbitration. We reverse.

This is the second time this case has been before us. On the first occasion, we held that although the policy contained no uninsured motorist provision, compliance with section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1987) was required. Sapienza v. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford, 543 So.2d 845 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 557 So.2d 867 (Fla. 1989). Upon remand, the trial court ordered the parties to proceed to arbitration, and once again, we find reversible error.

The policy in question does not contain an arbitration clause and, under the facts of this case, section 627.727 does not authorize arbitration.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

GUNTHER and FARMER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Security Ins. Co. Hartford v. Sapienza

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Apr 29, 1992
596 So. 2d 84 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)
Case details for

Security Ins. Co. Hartford v. Sapienza

Case Details

Full title:SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, APPELLANT, v. RANDALL SAPIENZA…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Apr 29, 1992

Citations

596 So. 2d 84 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)