JOHN DAVID JONES AND GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE CO., APPELLANTS,
v.
LEWIS P. BARWICK AND STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
A joint tortfeasor sued for contribution under Florida's Uniform Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors Act seeks to hold the other tortfeasor's insurer liable despite a family exclusion clause in the insurance policy. The court holds that family exclusion clauses do not bar contribution claims between joint tortfeasors, as contribution law aims to fairly apportion liability among wrongdoers rather than preserve family immunity.
A family exclusion clause in an insurance policy does not prevent recovery by a joint tortfeasor in a contribution action under Florida law. The policy exclusion for resident family members is not applicable in contribution cases.
[1] A family exclusion clause in an automobile liability insurance policy does not prevent recovery by a joint tortfeasor seeking contribution under the Uniform Contribution…
[2] The purpose of the Uniform Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors Act is to apportion responsibility among those who cause injury to innocent third parties.
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 doctrine of family or interspousal immunity is based on the desirability of the preservation of the family unit. The law of contribution of joint tortfeasors is meant to apportion the responsibility to pay innocent injured third parties between or among those causing the injury.”
Establishes the distinction between family immunity doctrine and contribution law, which are designed for different purposes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBarwick and Jones collided while driving automobiles. Barwick's wife was injured in the accident and sued Jones, obtaining a judgment. Jones then sued…
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 Family Exclusion Clause cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Chief Judge.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment in a personal injury case. The issue in this case is the same issue decided in Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Company v. Government Employees Insurance Company, et al, 371 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); does a family exclusion clause in an automobile liability insurance policy prevent recovery by a joint tortfeasor through the Uniform Contribution Among Joint Tort-feasors Act, Section 768.31, Florida Statutes. We answer the question in accord with our sister court and reverse the summary judgment.
Briefly, the facts are that Barwick and Jones collided while both were driving their automobiles. Barwick’s wife was injured, so she sued Jones and won. Jones then sued Barwick and his insurer, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, to require Barwick to contribute his share of the awarded damages. State Farm defended saying the policy between State Farm and Barwick excluded “. bodily injury to the insured, or any member of the family of the insured residing in the same household as the insured.” Because of this exclusion in the policy, State Farm urges it should not have to pay for the injuries its insured’s wife suffered, directly or by contribution to the other tortfeasor. As this author said in Paoli v. Shor, 345 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) in language approved by our Supreme Court in Shor v. Paoli, 353 So. 2d 825 (Fla.1977):
The doctrine of family or interspousal immunity is based on the desirability of the preservation of the family unit. The law of contribution of joint tortfeasors is meant to apportion the responsibility to pay innocent injured third parties between or among those causing the injury. In the case at bar it was determined that both Paoli and Shor caused the injury. Shor’s husband collected 100% of his damages from Paoli. To say that Shor doesn’t have to contribute and account for her wrongdoing would be unfair to Paoli and a windfall to Shor. This is not a case where the husband sued the wife on account of her negligence so we are not doing any real damage to the doctrine. This is a case where the joint tortfeasor sued the joint tortfeasor and we are ruling in support of that statute.
This court, along with the First District Court of Appeal in Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Company, supra, agrees with that reasoning and finds it applicable to these facts. Therefore, the policy exclusion for resident family members is not applicable in contribution cases.
The summary judgment is reversed and this cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
COBB and UPCHURCH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Jones, 397 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 1981)…PER CURIAM. The decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Jones v. Barwick, 386 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), is quashed on the authority of Florida Farm Bureau Ins. Co. v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 387 So. 2d 932 (Fla.1980). It is so ordered. SUNDBERG, C. J., and BOYD, OVER-TON, ENGLAND, ALDERMAN and MCDONALD, JJ., concur. A…
-
Jones v. Barwick, 399 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…DAUKSCH, Chief Judge. AFFIRMED on the authority of Florida Farm Bureau Ins. Co. v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 387 So. 2d 932 (Fla.1980). COBB and FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., JJ., concur. Opinion on appeal after remand, 386 So. 2d 7.…
Authorities Cited
- Shor v. Paoli, 353 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 1977)
- Paoli v. Shor, 345 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Fla. Farm Bureau Ins. Co. v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., 371 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)