AMERICAN AND FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
AVIS RENT-A-CAR SYSTEM, INC., APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1979-02-02
No. KK-430
SMITH, J., and MASON, ERNEST E., Associate Judge, concur.
367 So. 2d 1060 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1979) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

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.

Synopsis

A&F, the liability insurer for a permissive user of an Avis rental vehicle, appeals a judgment in favor of Avis that denied coverage. Avis relied on a cross-employee exclusion in its underlying Liberty Mutual policy to deny liability coverage promised in the rental agreement, but the court reversed because Avis failed to properly incorporate that policy's exclusions into the rental agreement and failed to prove the exclusion was a standard provision of automobile liability policies.


Holding

Avis may not rely on the cross-employee exclusion in the Liberty Mutual policy to deny coverage because: (1) the rental agreement failed to sufficiently identify or describe the Liberty Mutual policy; (2) Avis failed to prove that a cross-employee exclusion is among the standard provisions of an automobile liability insurance policy; and (3) Avis failed to establish that the specific exclusion in its Liberty Mutual policy is within the standard provisions of such policies.


Headnotes

[1] A rental agreement promising liability coverage in accordance with standard provisions of an automobile liability policy may not rely on an exclusion in a specific, unide…

[2] A party asserting an affirmative defense based on an insurance policy exclusion must establish that the exclusion is part of the "standard provisions" of an automobile li…

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

Key Quotes

“Avis may not rely upon the "cross-employee" exclusion contained in the Liberty Mutual policy to deny the coverage promised by the rental agreement.”

States the core holding that Avis cannot use an exclusion from an unidentified underlying policy to contradict the rental agreement's promise of coverage.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Employees of Blue Cross Blue Shield rented a vehicle from Avis. Robert Hulsey, a permissive user, was driving when an accident occurred. Mary Flesher,…

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.


Opinion of the Court
MILLS, Acting Chief Judge.

MILLS, Acting Chief Judge.

American and Foreign Insurance Company (A&F), the automobile liability carrier of Robert Hulsey, appeals from a final judgment entered in favor of Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc. (Avis).

A group of employees, while in the course of their employment with Blue Cross Blue Shield, rented a vehicle from Avis. An accident occurred while Hulsey, a permissive user of the rented vehicle, was driving. Mary Flesher, a passenger in the vehicle and co-employee of Hulsey, brought suit against Hulsey, A&F, and Avis for the injuries she sustained as a result of the accident. Final judgment was entered against Hulsey and A&F for $233,000 plus costs. A&F brought the present action against Avis seeking subrogation in accordance with the Avis rental agreement.

Avis’ rental agreement provided in part:

Lessor provides coverage for person using the vehicle with the permission of lessor (and not otherwise) in accordance with the standard provisions of an automobile liability insurance policy, a copy of which is available for inspection at the main office of lessor on request, against liability for bodily injury, including death (limits $100,000 each person, $300,000 each accident) and property damage ($25,000) arising out of use of the vehicle, which coverage includes mandatory No fault benefits as required by law. Lessor reserves the right, where permitted by law to provide said coverage under certif icate of self insurance in lieu of or in combination with an insurance policy.

Avis asserted as an affirmative defense that the policy mentioned under the above-quoted paragraph of the Rental Agreement, in accordance with the standard provisions of an automobile liability insurance policy, provided no coverage for Hulsey in that it contained the following exclusion:

Persons insured .

None of the following is an insured .

(i) any person while engaged in the business of his employer with respect to bodily injury to any fellow employee of such person injured in the course of his employment; .

This exclusion was contained in a comprehensive general and automobile liability policy issued by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company to Avis. The trial court determined that the conditions applicable to the insurance coverage promised by the rental agreement where those set out in the Liberty Mutual Insurance policy issued to Avis. Relying on the “cross-employee” exclusion therein, the court found that Hulsey was not an insured under that policy. We reverse.

Avis may not rely upon the “cross-employee” exclusion contained in the Liberty Mutual policy to deny the coverage promised by the rental agreement. The rental agreement promised that Avis would provide liability coverage for permissive users “in accordance with the standard provisions of an automobile liability policy, a copy of which is available at the main office of lessor [Avis].” The agreement fails to identify or sufficiently describe the Liberty Mutual policy as the policy referred to by the agreement. In fact, the agreement even fails to identify the main office where “the” policy was located and available for inspection. Furthermore, Avis presented no evidence to establish that a “cross-employee” exclusion is among “the standard provisions of an automobile liability insurance policy.” Nor did Avis establish that the “cross-employee” exclusion contained in the Liberty Mutual policy is within “the standard provisions of an automobile liability insurance policy.” For these reasons, Avis failed to establish its affirmative defense that the rental agreement provided no coverage for Hulsey.

Accordingly, the final judgment entered in favor of Avis is reversed. The cause is remanded with instructions that final judgment be entered in favor of A & F. SMITH, J., and MASON, ERNEST E., Associate Judge, concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Am. & Foreign Ins. Co. v. AVIS Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc., 401 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
    …we grant the motion in part and withdraw the decision and opinion filed May 5, 1981, substituting the following decision and opinion in lieu thereof. This appeal is a sequel to American and Foreign Insurance Company v. Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc., 367 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), cert. denied, 379 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 1979). Upon the going down of the mandate in that case, the trial court, pursuant to mandate, entered a final judgment awarding to American and Foreign Insurance Company (“American”) judgment…
  • MacKENZIE v. AVIS Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc., 369 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
    …bear the implication on which appellants rely.” Morpurgo is therefore not persuasive. We think, however, that Riccio v. Allstate Ins. Co., 357 So. 2d 420 (Fla.3d DCA 1978), [*650] and American and Foreign Ins. Co. v. Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc., 367 So. 2d 1060 (Fla.1st DCA 1979) clearly support our present conclusion.5 In Riccio, we held that a jury question was presented as to whether an insurance company’s undertaking to give an insured “full coverage” included an obligation to provide $100,000/$300,000…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw