PHILLIP YADEN, APPELLANT,
v.
HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, 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.
A passenger injured in an automobile accident sought to stack his uninsured motorist coverage with the driver's uninsured motorist coverage to recover damages exceeding the driver's liability limits. The court held that stacking is not permitted when the tortfeasor's liability coverage equals the injured person's uninsured motorist coverage, as underinsured motorist coverage only applies when liability limits are less than uninsured motorist limits.
The court affirmed summary judgment for the insurer, holding that stacking is not permitted in this circumstance. Underinsured motorist coverage under Florida law only applies when a tortfeasor's liability limits are less than the injured person's uninsured motorist coverage limits, which was not the case here since both were $10,000.
[1] Uninsured motorist coverage is first-party insurance designed to protect the insured from injuries caused by an uninsured person.
[2] The purpose of uninsured motorist coverage is to allow an insured to add together or stack such coverages.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 purpose of that type of insurance seems to be to allow a person to buy insurance to protect himself and that category of persons defined as named insureds from the unfortunate happenstance of being injured by an uninsured person. It is in the nature of first party insurance.”
Establishes the fundamental purpose and nature of uninsured motorist coverage as first-party insurance
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePhillip Yaden was injured as a passenger in an automobile operated by Charles Vorobok. Vorobok's vehicle was insured by Travelers with $10,000/$20,000…
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 Underinsured Motorist Coverage cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Chief Judge.
While a passenger in an automobile owned and operated by Charles Vorobok, the appellant, Phillip Yaden, was injured due to an automobile accident. Vorobok was insured by Travelers Insurance Company with liability limits of $10,000/20,000 and uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage in the same amounts. Appellant had identical coverage with Hanover Insurance Company. After Travelers paid appellant the limits of its liability policy, appellant brought this suit, claiming that he was entitled to stack the Hanover uninsured motorist coverage upon the Travelers uninsured motorist coverage, since appellant’s damages exceeded the amount of the Travelers liability coverage.
Appellant suffered an adverse summary judgment in the trial court and seeks review of that disposition of his claim.
It appears to us the trial court was eminently correct in granting summary judgment for appellee denying appellant’s right to stack his uninsured motorist coverage of $10,000 and Vorobok’s $10,000 uninsured motorist coverage.
Several Florida cases1 have cited Cunningham v. INA, 213 Va. 72, 189 S.E. 2d 832 (1972), for the rationale behind uninsured motorist coverage. Distilled to its essence, the purpose of that type of insurance seems to be to allow a person to buy insurance to protect himself and that category of persons defined as named insureds from the unfortunate happenstance of being injured by an uninsured person. It is in the nature of first party insurance. The purchaser of such coverage is entitled to add together or stack such coverages.2
We are not dealing here with a true uninsured or underinsured motorist. The car in which appellant was riding at the time of the accident was insured with $10,-000/20,000 liability coverage and a like amount of uninsured motorist coverage. Thus, the liability coverage held by Vorbok and the uninsured motorist coverage of appellant were equal.
In order to determine if appellant can recover both under his policy and under Yorobok’s policy we must look to the statute. Section 627.727(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1973), provides in pertinent part:
“(2) For the purpose of this coverage, the term ‘uninsured motor vehicle’ shall, subject to the terms and conditions of such coverage, be deemed to include an insured motor vehicle when the liability insurer thereof:
“(a) * * *
“(b) Has provided limits of bodily injury liability for its insured which are less than the limits applicable to the injured person provided under uninsured motorist’s coverage.”
The concept of underinsured motorist coverage provided for in Section 627.727(2)(b) only applies to a situation where the claimant has “UMI” coverage which exceeds the amount of “liability” coverage possessed by a tortfeasor. That concept does not include stacking the tortfeasor’s UMI and the UMI coverage of the injured person.
In this case Travelers has not provided limits of bodily injury liability for Vorobok which are less than the limits applicable to Yaden under Yaden’s uninsured motorist coverage. Thus, appellant’s contention that he should be able to stack both coverages is incorrect.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment appealed from.
ANSTEAD and LETTS, JJ., concur. . Government Employees Insurance Company v. Taylor, 342 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Travelers Insurance Company v. Pac, 337 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1976).
. This case arose prior to the enactment of Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (1976), which prohibits stacking.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Shelby Mut. Ins. Co. v. Smith, 527 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…torically, the statute’s language concerning under-insured motorists has been interpreted to mean a motorist whose available liability coverage is less than the uninsured motorist limits of the injured party’s policy. Yaden v. Hanover Insurance Co., 375 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), cert. den. 383 So. 2d 1205. See 627.727(3). The 1984 amendment implicitly redefines the term “underinsured motorist” to mean a motorist whose liability limits are insufficient to cover all of the injured party’s damages. Only wh…
-
Behrmann v. Indus. Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 374 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…sured for the same limits under the uninsured motorist provision of the insured motorist’s policy, as, under identical circumstances, it has been held that the plaintiff cannot stack such uninsured motorist coverages. Yaden v. Hanover Insurance Co., 375 So. 2d 5 (Fla.4th DCA 1979). It is unnecessary to consider the reasons stated in the final judgment for denying uninsured motorist coverage herein as it is clear that the trial court, in any event, reached the right result. In re Estate of Yohn, 238 So. 2d…
-
Scharfschwerdt v. Allstate Ins. Co., 430 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…(Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Behrmann v. Industrial Fire & Casualty Insurance Co., 374 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Travelers Insurance Co. v. Wilson, 371 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. den. 385 So. 2d 762 (Fla.1980); Yaden v. Hanover Insurance Co., 375 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), cert. den. 383 So. 2d 1205 (Fla.1980). .We have, without articulating it, applied the principle stated in this case in our Per Curiam Affirmed decision in Sparks v. Allstate Insurance Company, 413 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…
Authorities Cited
- Travelers Ins. Co. v. PAC, 337 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. & Travelers Indem. Co. v. Clem Taylor, 342 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)