JOHN A. LOWE, III, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
John Lowe appealed a summary judgment denying his claim for personal injury protection benefits under his State Farm auto insurance policy after an accident in an uninsured vehicle. The court affirmed, holding that Lowe's newly acquired Volkswagen was not covered because he failed to notify State Farm of its acquisition within the required 30-day period.
The Volkswagen was not covered because it was neither the listed vehicle (the BMW) nor a newly acquired car qualifying for automatic coverage, as Lowe failed to notify State Farm of its acquisition during the required 30-day period after delivery.
[1] An insurance policy provision defining "your car" as the automobile listed on the declarations page excludes coverage for a vehicle not so listed.
[2] A vehicle is not a "newly acquired car" under an insurance policy if the insured fails to notify the insurer of its acquisition within the period specified by the policy.
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“If the vehicle involved in the accident is owned by you or your spouse, this coverage applies only if it is: (1) Your car [defined elsewhere in the policy as the automobile listed on the declarations page, in this case the BMW]; or (2) A newly acquired ear.”
The controlling policy provision limiting coverage to listed vehicles or newly acquired cars, which is the basis for the court's holding.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLowe was insured by State Farm from May 19, 1980 to November 19, 1980, with a 1972 BMW listed on the declarations page. On September 17, 1980, Lowe ha…
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 Prejudice To Insurer cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, Chief Judge.
Appellant Lowe appeals from a summary final judgment in favor of appellee State Farm, in a dispute arising out of Lowe’s claim for personal injury protection benefits. We affirm.
Lowe, a Florida resident, was insured by State Farm for the period May 19, 1980, to November 19, 1980. The insured vehicle was a 1972 BMW. On September 17, 1980, Lowe was involved in an accident in Ohio, while driving a 1971 Volkswagen which he had purchased five days earlier. He had not notified State Farm of the additional vehicle, nor in fact, did he notify State Farm of the accident until February 13, 1981.
State Farm contended below that Lowe was not covered while operating his Volkswagen because it was not insured under the policy. Lowe contends that it was covered and that there is no showing of prejudice to State Farm because of the lack of notice.
The policy provision which controls here says, in pertinent part:
“If there is other no-fault coverage or if you own more than one vehicle:
1. Vehicles you own.
a. If the vehicle involved in the accident is owned by you or your spouse, this coverage applies only if it is:
(1) Your car [defined elsewhere in the policy as the automobile listed on the declarations page, in this case the BMW]; or (2) A newly acquired ear.1
The policy did not list the Volkswagen as the insured vehicle, so it was excluded from coverage under the definition of “your car.” Neither could it qualify as a “newly acquired car”, because the insured never notified the insurer of the acquisition of the car during the policy period, let alone the 30-day period after acquisition required by the policy. See Pennsylvania Threshermen & Farmers Mutual Casualty Insurance Company v. Traister, 173 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965).
The summary final judgment is
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH and SHARP, JJ., concur. .The policy provides that “a newly acquired car”:
Means a car newly owned by you or your spouse if it:
1. Replaces your car; or
2. Is an added car and we insure all other cars owned by you and your spouse on the date of its delivery to you or your spouse; but only if you or your spouse:
1. Tell us about it within 30 days after its delivery to you or your spouse; and
2. If you or your spouse has more than one of our car policies, tell us which one to apply; and
3. Pay us any added premium due.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rabatie v. U.S. Sec. Ins. Co., 581 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…496 F. 2d 1168, 1170 (5th Cir.1974) (no notification within 30 days); Reliance Ins. Co. v. D’Amico, 528 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (same); Johnson v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 438 So. 2d at 1046 (same); Lowe v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 420 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (same). The authorities simply do not support U.S. Security’s argument that notification of the insurer is a condition precedent to coverage. The insurer has attempted to distinguish the adverse body of decisional law on the gro…1 / 3
-
Reliance Ins. Co. v. D'Amico, 528 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…urt entered an amended final judgment for D’Amico in the amount of $6,801.06 plus interest. In this appeal Reliance argues, citing Johnson v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 438 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), and Lowe v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., 420 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), that the policy of insurance issued to D’Amico does not cover the replacement motor because D’Amico did not comply with the policy’s notice requirement for newly acquired property. D’Amico argues that he was never advised by Re…
-
Johnson v. Travelers Indem. Co. & Steven Tracy Williams, 438 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…e acquisition of the car within thirty days of his acquiring it. Therefore, the Camaro was not covered by the commercial policy, even assuming the same family policy coverage had been extended. Lowe v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 420 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). The final summary judgment is AFFIRMED. LARRY G. SMITH, WENTWORTH and JOANOS, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pa. Threshermen & Farmers' Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Traister, 173 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)