MAUREEN LINEHAN, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF MARIANNA R. LINEHAN, DECEASED, ETC., ET AL., APPELLANT,
v.
KATHERINE ALKHABBAZ, LAURA LINEHAN, STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, ETC., ET AL., 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.
This appeal concerns the enforceability of a household exclusion clause in an automobile insurance policy. The court affirmed summary judgment for State Farm, holding that the exclusion validly denied coverage for injuries to a household member caused by another household member's negligence, following the established precedent of Reid v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
The court held that the household exclusion clause is a valid contractual provision that bars coverage under the automobile insurance policy. State Farm's assertion of the exclusion to deny coverage for Laura Linehan's negligence was properly upheld on summary judgment.
[1] A household exclusion provision in an automobile insurance policy is valid and enforceable.
[2] An automobile insurance policy may exclude coverage for bodily injury to an insured or a family member residing in the same household as the insured.
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“There, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the household exclusion as a contractual provision in such a policy. While the facts are not identical, the principle is the same and we hold that Reid, supra, does support the trial judge's decision.”
This quote establishes the court's rationale for affirming the household exclusion, demonstrating reliance on established precedent that such clauses are valid contractual provisions.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKatherine Alkhabbaz owned an automobile that she loaned to her aunt, Marianna R. Linehan, for a trip to Wisconsin. Marianna and her daughter Laura, wh…
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 Automobile Insurance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment upholding the validity of the house hold exclusion provision of an automobile insurance policy.
The uncontroverted facts giving rise to the entry of summary judgment in favor of the insurer, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, as to any claims against it arising from any negligence of Laura Linehan, are as follows. Katherine Alkhabbaz owned an automobile which she loaned to her Aunt Marianna R. Linehan for a trip to Wisconsin. While in Wisconsin the car was involved in a one car accident which killed Marianna and injured her daughter, Laura, who was driving at the time. Marianna and Laura had resided together in the same household.
Marianna’s personal representative sued Alkhabbaz; Laura Linehan; State Farm Mutual, which insured the Alkhabbaz vehicle; and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, which insured Marianna’s automobile (not the automobile involved in the accident). Alkhabbaz was never served with process and thus is not presently a party to the suit. In its answer State Farm Mutual admitted Laura was driving the Alkhabbaz vehicle with the consent of the owner and was thus an insured under the policy. However, State Farm asserted that, since Marianna and Laura were residents of the same household, the State Farm policy afforded no coverage for a claim against it for any negligence of Laura Linehan’s because of the exclusion pertaining to members of the same household.1 State Farm also affirmatively pleaded that the alleged negligence having occurred in the State of Wisconsin, the law of that jurisdiction applied.2 The trial court granted State Farm a summary judgment relying on Reid v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 352 So. 2d 1172 (Fla.1978) and this appeal ensued.
We have considered all of appellant’s theories as to why Reid does not control this case and remain unimpressed. There, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the household exclusion as a contractual provision in such a policy. While the facts are not identical, the principle is the same and we hold that Reid, supra, does support the trial judge’s decision. Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
DOWNEY, GLICKSTEIN and HURLEY, JJ., concur. . Paraphrased, the exclusion provides that this insurance does not apply under coverage A to bodily injury to any insured or any member of the family of any insured residing in the same household as the insured.
. The Florida dangerous instrumentality doctrine as applied to automobiles does not pertain in Wisconsin.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Gilda Menendez, 70 So. 3d 566 (Fla. 2011)…ousehold of a permissive-driver insured. The Third District thus applied the rule that ambiguous policy provisions must be interpreted in favor of the insured. The Third District’s decision expressly and directly conflicts with Linehan v. Alkhabbaz, 398 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal concluded that a similar household exclusion provision did bar coverage for the injury claims of a member of the permissive driver’s household. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b…
-
Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Kitteridge S. Fitzgibbon, 568 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…to Ins., 485 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Harrison v. Metropolitan Property and Liability Insurance Co., 475 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Curtin v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co., 449 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Linehan v. Alkhabbaz, 398 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). It apparently does not matter whether or not a non-family member was the negligent driver. The insured and the insured’s family members wrongfully injured as passengers in the car are still barred from liability coverage by the…
-
AMICA Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sylvan A. Wells, 507 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…her spouses could sue each other in a tort action and not the construction of an insurance policy in a contract action. It should also be noted that the family exclusion has been upheld in a case where one party is deceased. In Linehan v. Alkhabbaz, 398 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), a one car accident killed the mother and injured her daughter who was driving at the time. They were residents of the same household. The Fourth District held that the principle in Reid was the same and supported a summary judgm…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Reid v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 352 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 1977)