PATRICIA REEVES, APPELLANT,
v.
MERLIN MILLER 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.
Patricia Reeves was injured in an automobile accident caused by Merlin Miller, who was operating a vehicle in the course of his federal employment. State Farm's liability policy contained an exclusion for obligations under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which the court held was invalid because it exceeded the scope of exclusions authorized by Florida's mandatory liability insurance statute.
The exclusion is invalid and unenforceable because insurance provided to comply with a statutory requirement must comply with the statute. Exclusions not contemplated by the statute are contrary to public policy and are disregarded, with the policy enforced as if in full compliance with statutory requirements.
[1] Insurance provided to comply with a statutory requirement must comply with the statute.
[2] A motor vehicle liability insurance policy containing exclusions not contemplated by the statute requiring such coverage does not provide the required coverage.
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“Insurance provided to comply with a statutory requirement must comply with the statute. A policy purporting to provide the required statutory coverage but containing exclusions not contemplated by the statute does not provide the required coverage.”
Establishes the core principle that mandatory insurance policies cannot contain exclusions beyond those authorized by statute.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn June 23, 1975, Patricia Reeves was injured in an accident involving Merlin Miller, who was operating his privately owned automobile while working a…
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 Statutory Compliance cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
This case involves the validity of an exclusionary clause contained in an automobile liability insurance policy, which exclusionary clause was not provided for in the state law requiring such liability policy.
On June 23, 1975, appellant was injured in an accident involving appellee Merlin Miller, who was operating his privately owned automobile while acting in the course of his employment as a recruiter for the United States Marine Corps. Therefore, the United States was liable for Miller’s actions under the federal tort claims act. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2679(b) (Supp.1982). At the time of this accident, Miller was required by the laws of the State of Florida to have a motor vehicle liability policy.1 Miller’s policy with appellee State Farm contained an exclusion from liability coverage for both bodily injuries and property damages as to “any obligation for which the United States may be liable under the federal tort claims act.” Appellant sued Miller for negligence and State Farm as Miller’s liability carrier. The trial court entered summary judgment for State Farm on the basis of the exclusionary clause. We reverse.
Insurance provided to comply with a statutory requirement must comply with the statute. A policy purporting to provide the required statutory coverage but containing exclusions not contemplated by the statute does not provide the required coverage. Since the unauthorized exclusions are contrary to public policy as established by the statute, they are deemed inapplicable and disregarded and the policy is enforced as if it were in express compliance with the statutory requirements. See, e.g., Mullis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 252 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 1971); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins, Co. v. Chapman, 415 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Andriakos v. Cavanaugh, 350 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).
The statutes requiring Miller to have motor vehicle liability coverage did not provide for an exclusion for obligations cognizable under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Therefore, that exclusion is contrary to the legislative public policy requiring such liability insurance and is inoperative and invalid. The trial court erred in relying on the exclusion in granting the appealed summary judgment and that judgment is hereby
REVERSED and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
ORFINGER, C. J., and COBB, J., concur. . See ch. 324, Fla.Stat. (1975); § 627.733, Fla. Stat. (1975) (effective January 1, 1972). See also ch. 77 468, § 31, Laws of Florida (amending section 627.733(3)(a), effective September 1, 1977).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Am. Indem. Co. v. Comeau, 419 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…opportunity to present evidence as to the reasonableness of that item. AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part. COBB and FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., JJ., concur. . See Mullis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 252 So. 2d 229 (Fla.1971); Reeves v. Miller, 418 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Harbach v. New Hampshire Ins. Group, 413 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). . State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Rutkin, 199 So. 2d 705 (Fla.1967); Lumbermen’s Mut. Cas. Co. v. Meade, 404 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Fidelity…
-
Ranger Ins. Co. v. BAL Harbour Club, Inc., 509 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…istently refused to give effect to insurance coverage provisions which contravene public policy. See, e.g., Shingleton (nonjoinder provisions in motor vehicle liability policies are contrary to public policy and are unenforceable); Reeves v. Miller, 418 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (motor vehicle liability policy which did not provide for exclusion for obligations cognizable under Federal Tort Claims Act is contrary to legislative public policy and is inoperative and invalid); Hussar v. Girard Life Insuranc…
Authorities Cited
- Mullis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 252 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 1971)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Chapman, 415 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Wilson v. State, 350 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)