KARL BARRY MASTERS AND AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
LATONA LESTER, 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.
An insurance company appealed a summary judgment ruling that a plaintiff injured in an accident could recover the full $20,000 uninsured motorist coverage without reduction by the $15,000 already paid under liability and personal injury protection benefits from the same policy. The court reversed, holding that policy language and Florida law require set-off of amounts previously paid against available uninsured motorist coverage.
Amounts previously paid under the policy reduce the uninsured/underinsured coverage available under the policy. The policy's explicit reduction clause requires set-off of all sums paid on account of bodily injury, including amounts paid under liability coverage and personal injury protection benefits.
[1] Insurance policy provisions requiring reduction of uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage by sums paid under liability coverage are enforceable.
[2] Amounts paid to an insured under the liability coverage of a policy must be set off against the uninsured motorist coverage available for the same accident.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Any amount payable under the terms of this coverage because of bodily injury sustained in an accident by a person who is an Insured under this Coverage shall be reduced by: All sums paid on account of such bodily injury by or on behalf of (i) the owner or operator of the uninsured automobile and (ii) any other person or organization jointly or severally liable together with such owner or operator for such bodily injury including all sums paid under the Liability Coverage”
The explicit policy language requiring set-off of amounts paid under liability coverage against uninsured motorist benefits
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Lester was injured as a passenger in her own vehicle being operated by defendant Karl Barry Masters with her consent. Aetna Casualty & Suret…
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 Liability Insurance cases and more on FLexlaw
BOOTH, Judge.
This cause is before us on interlocutory appeal from the.order of the Circuit Court in Duval County, granting partial summary final judgment in favor of appellee on her claim for uninsured motorist coverage. The sole question presented is whether the trial court correctly rules that amounts of insurance paid to the plaintiff for liability and for personal injury protection would not be set off against the available uninsured motorist coverage.
The facts are that plaintiff Lester was injured while a passenger in her own automobile which was being operated with her consent at the time of the accident by defendant Karl Barry Masters. Plaintiff’s insurer, Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, afforded liability coverage for Masters under the omnibus clause of plaintiff’s policy and paid plaintiff the $10,000 liability limits of that policy. Personal injury protection benefits were also paid plaintiff by her insurer in the amount of $5,000. Plaintiff then claimed uninsured motorist coverage which was determined by the court to be $20,000 in amount.1
The trial court held that, assuming plaintiff’s damages equaled or exceeded $35,000, she would be entitled to the entire $20,000 uninsured motorist coverage, unreduced by the $15,000 previously paid under the same policy. We reverse.
The policy in question contains the following provision as to uninsured/underin-sured coverage:
“LIMITS OF LIABILITY:
(b) Any amount payable under the terms of this coverage because of bodily injury sustained in an accident by a person who is an Insured under this Coverage shall be reduced by:
(1) All sums paid on account of such bodily injury by or on behalf of (i) the owner or operator of the uninsured automobile and (ii) any other person or organization jointly or severally liable together with such owner or operator for such bodily injury including all sums paid under the Liability Coverage . . . ”
We hold that under the above-quoted provision, amounts previously paid under the policy reduce the uninsured/underinsured coverage available under the policy. This is in accord with Florida Statute § 627.727(1), as most recently interpreted by the Supreme Court in Dewberry v. Auto Owners Insurance Company, 363 So. 2d 1077, 1978. Rehearing denied November 28, 1978, holding that amounts paid the plaintiff under liability insurance covering the tortfeasor was set off against uninsured motorist coverage available for the same accident. Our decision is also in accord with the recent decision of the Third District Court in Aetna Casualty and Surety Company v. Ilmonen, 360 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), wherein the court held that amounts paid to the plaintiff for liability and personal protection benefits would be set off against the uninsured motorist coverage, holding:
“Our decision entitles appellee to the full amount of coverage that her husband purchased. The purpose of the uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage is to enable an insured to recover under his or her policy of insurance for damages that he or she would have been able to recover against the negligent motorist if that motorist had maintained a policy of liability insurance.”
To like effect are the decisions of this Court in Main Insurance Company v. Wiggins, 349 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) and Hunt v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, 349 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Evans v. Florida Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co., 355 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Fidelity and Casualty Co. v. Moreno, 350 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) and Stuyvesant Insurance Co. v. Johnson, 307 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), cert. denied 316 So. 2d 290 (Fla.1975).
Accordingly, the judgment sought to be reviewed is REVERSED and the cause REMANDED for entry of a judgment consistent herewith.
McCORD, C. J., and MELVIN, J., concur. . This part of the decision below is not before us on appeal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Gerhard S. Bergman, 387 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…to Carter v. Government Emp. Ins. Co., 377 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1977), is the applicable statute and it has been interpreted to allow a set-off. Carter v. Government Emp. Ins. Co.; Masters v. Lester, 366 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Evans v. Florida Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 355 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). See also Gaines v. Industrial Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 378 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Florida Farm Bureau Cas. Co. v. Andrews, 369 So. 2d 346 (Fla.…
-
Carter v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. & Eual T. Berry, 377 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…lied. We do not agree with any of these contentions. Therefore, we affirm. This court has twice ruled that under Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1977), PIP benefits are to be set off against the injured party’s UM coverage. Masters v. Lester, 366 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), Evans v. Florida Farm Bureau Casualty-Insurance Company, 355 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Those decisions control our holding here. See also Aetna Casualty and Surety Company v. Ilmonen, 360 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). W…1 / 2
-
Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Lackore, 408 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 1982)…insured’s injuries exceeded the limits of the combined coverages. See Kenilworth Insurance Co. v. Drake, 396 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Waters v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 393 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Masters v. Lester, 366 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). In these cases the courts misunderstood Dewberry; there we allowed the uninsured motorist carrier to set off the underinsured motorist’s liability proceeds because they were duplicative. Both the uninsured motorist benefits and…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dewberry v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 363 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 1978)
- Morgan v. State, 355 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Ilmonen, 360 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Stuyvesant Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 307 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Hunt v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 349 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Johnson v. State, 349 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Lumbermans Mut. Cas. Co. v. Travelers Ins. Co., 349 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Coll v. Coll, 350 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Indian River Trading Corp. v. Fla. First Nat'l Bank AT Vero Beach, 316 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1975)
- Sheffield v. State, 316 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1975)