UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
BERNARD TIMON AND ANNIE TIMON, APPELLEES
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.
USF&G appeals a summary judgment requiring it to pay uninsured motorist benefits when the insured received the policy limit ($10,000) from an insured tortfeasor, despite a phantom uninsured tortfeasor also contributing to the collision. The court held that availability of an insured recovery from a joint tortfeasor precludes access to uninsured motorist coverage even if a phantom tortfeasor contributed to the loss.
USF&G's limit of liability for uninsured motorist benefits is $10,000 regardless of the number of tortfeasors and vehicles involved, and the availability of an insured $10,000 recovery from tortfeasor Shell precludes access to USF&G's uninsured motorist benefits.
[1] Uninsured motorist benefits are not available when the claimant can recover the policy limits from a joint tortfeasor's liability insurance, even if a phantom tortfeasor…
[2] The availability of an insured recovery equal to the uninsured motorist policy limits satisfies the purpose of uninsured motorist coverage, precluding access to such bene…
Previewing 2 of 3 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 availability of an insured $10,000 recovery from tortfeasor Shell precludes access to USF&G's uninsured motorist benefits”
States the core holding regarding when uninsured motorist benefits are available despite phantom tortfeasor involvement
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellees Timon were injured in a collision involving three vehicles: their own, a vehicle operated by Shell (who had a $10,000 liability policy), and…
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 Uninsured Motorist Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Acting Chief Judge.
USF&G appeals from a circuit court summary judgment determining that USF&G is or will be liable, depending on the extent of appellees’ injuries, for up to $10,000 of uninsured motorist benefits provided by their USF&G policy, even if appellees should collect the liability policy limits, $10,000, on an automobile operated by alleged (and assumed) tortfeasor Shell into a collision with appellees’ vehicle. The summary judgment is predicated on the theory that a third vehicle, driven by a hit-and-run phantom tortfeasor, contributed to appellees’ loss; that the phantom tortfeasor’s vehicle was uninsured; and consequently that appellees’ uninsured motorist benefits should compensate appellees on account of the unavailability of an insured recovery from the phantom tortfeasor, even though the insurer of joint tortfeasor Shell will respond to the extent of $10,000, the exact amount of appellees’ uninsured motorist coverage.
In our view USF&G’s limit of liability for uninsured motorist benefits is $10,000, irrespective of the number of tortfeasors and vehicles in the collision, and that the availability of an insured $10,000 recovery from tortfeasor Shell precludes access to USF&G’s uninsured motorist benefits. See Dewberry v. Auto Owners Ins. Co., 363 So. 2d 1077 (Fla.1978); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 371 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Aetna Cas. and Surety Co. v. Ilmonen, 360 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). The availability of one joint tortfeasor’s liability insurance benefits, in the same amount as claimants’ uninsured motorist benefits, satisfies the purpose for which uninsured motorist benefits were provided by law and contract, irrespective of the fact that those uninsured motorist benefits would be available to claimants in full were the phantom the only tortfeasor, and irrespective of the fact that claimants’ insured recovery would be greater were the phantom not a phantom but rather an insured tortfeasor brought jointly to court with the tortfeasor insured equally with claimants’ uninsured motorist liability limits.
REVERSED.
SHIVERS, J., and MASON, ERNEST E., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bayles v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 483 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 1985)…oday. Scharfschwerdt v. Allstate Insurance Co., 430 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Craft v. Government Employees Insurance Co., 432 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 440 So. 2d 351 (Fla.1983); United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Timon, 379 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Travelers Insurance Co. v. Wilson, 371 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 385 So. 2d 762 (Fla.1980). The decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal is approved. It is so ordered. BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON…
-
Bradley v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., 460 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…984); Craft v. Government Employees Insurance Co., 432 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 440 So. 2d 351 (Fla.1983); Scharfschwerdt v. Allstate Insurance Co., 430 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Timon, 379 So. 2d 113 (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. Affirmed.…
-
Kenilworth Ins. Co. v. Drake, 396 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)…y insurance. Dewberry v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co., 363 So. 2d 1077, 1081[8] (Fla.1978). The coverage available to the insured is not affected by the fact that there may be more than one tortfeasor involved. U. S. Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Timón, 379 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Thus, appellee, was covered by UM insurance in the total sum of $40,-000.1 However, the language of the statute (section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1975), as amended by ch. 266, Laws of Fla. (1976))2 is somewhat ambiguous, which…
Previewing 3 of 9 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)
- The Travelers Ins. Co. v. Laurence H. Wilson, 371 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Ilmonen, 360 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)