DAVID GILLETTE, ETC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of section 627.4132, which prohibits the "stacking" of certain motor vehicle insurance coverages. The court rejected a facial constitutional challenge to the statute, holding that it is a reasonable exercise of the state's authority to regulate insurance in furtherance of the public welfare.
The court held that section 627.4132 is constitutional. It is a reasonable exercise of the state's authority to regulate the insurance industry in furtherance of the public welfare and does not violate the right to freely contract on its face.
[1] A statute prohibiting the "stacking" of certain insurance coverages is a constitutional exercise of the state's authority to regulate the insurance industry for the publi…
[2] A statute that prohibits the "stacking" of insurance coverages is distinct from prior case law that permitted stacking due to the absence of statutory authorization for p…
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“The statute is a reasonable exercise of the state's undisputed authority to regulate the insurance industry in furtherance of the public welfare.”
Establishes the constitutional basis for the statute, citing the state's regulatory authority over insurance
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved a constitutional challenge to section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (1977), which restricts the ability of insureds to combine or "stac…
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 Stacking Of Insurance Coverage cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This case is on appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit, in and for Escambia County, in which the court passed upon the constitutionality of section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (1977).1 We have jurisdiction. Art. Y, § 3(b)(1), Fla.Const. The question presented is whether, on its face, section 627.4132 is an unconstitutional infringement of the right of persons to freely contract. This question was expressly left open in Dewberry v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 363 So. 2d 1077 (Fla.1978), which held that as applied in that case, the law unconstitutionally impaired a preexisting contractual right in violation of article I, section 10, Florida Constitution.
The appellants have cited cases in which “stacking” of coverage was permitted because the policy exclusions which purported to prohibit it were not authorized by statute. E. g., Tucker v. Government Employees Insurance Co., 288 So. 2d 238 (Fla.1973). These cases have no bearing on the question of the validity of a statute which prohibits the “stacking” of certain coverages. The statute is a reasonable exercise of the state’s undisputed authority to regulate the insurance industry in furtherance of the public welfare. See Manning v. Travelers Insurance Co., 250 So. 2d 872 (Fla.1971). We hold that it is constitutional.
The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
ENGLAND, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, SUNDBERG and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur. . 627.4132 Stacking of coverages prohibited.— If an insured or named insured is protected by any type of motor vehicle insurance policy for liability, uninsured motorist, personal injury protection, or any other coverage, the policy shall provide that the insured or named insured is protected only to the extent of the coverage he has on the vehicle involved in the accident. However, if none of the insured’s or named insured’s vehicles is involved in the accident, coverage is available only to the extent of coverage on any one of the vehicles with applicable coverage. Coverage on any other vehicles shall not be added to or stacked upon that coverage. This section shall not apply to reduce the coverage available by reason of insurance policies insuring different named insureds.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Wimpee, 376 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)…sonable exercise of the state’s undisputed authority to regulate the insurance industry in furtherance of the public welfare. See Manning v. Travelers Insurance Co., 250 So. 2d 872 (Fla.1971). Gillette v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 374 So. 2d 525 (Fla.1979). During the preparation of this opinion, our research revealed the presence of a decision of one of our sister courts reaching [*22] the same conclusion expressed here,1 with which we, of course, agree. Thus, we hold that no coverage exi…
Authorities Cited
- Dewberry v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 363 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 1978)
- Tucker v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., 288 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 1973)
- Manning v. The Travelers Ins. Co., 250 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 1971)