STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
HUBERT WORKMAN, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF NAOMI LYNN WORKMAN, A DECEASED MINOR, 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.
State Farm denied underinsured motorist benefits to the father of a deceased minor based on a policy exclusion, claiming the vehicle was covered under a liability policy. The court held that underinsured motorist coverage applies when the injury itself is covered by liability insurance, regardless of whether the vehicle is insured under the liability portion of the policy.
Underinsured motorist benefits under State Farm's policy are available to Hubert Workman. The proper focus is whether the injury itself is covered by liability insurance, not whether some form of insurance covered the vehicle involved in the accident.
[1] Underinsured motorist benefits are available when the tortfeasor's liability coverage is less than the underinsured motorist limits of the claimant's policy.
[2] An exclusion in an underinsured motorist policy for a vehicle insured under the liability portion of the policy does not preclude coverage when the injury for which a cla…
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 focus of our inquiry should be whether the injury for which a claim is made is covered by liability insurance, rather than a general inquiry into whether some kind of insurance covered, for some purposes, the automobile involved in the accident”
Establishes the proper legal standard for determining underinsured motorist coverage eligibility, rejecting State Farm's vehicle-based approach in favor of an injury-based approach
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNaomi Workman was killed while driving a car owned by Kenneth Willis, who was a passenger. Willis' Allstate liability policy limits were less than the…
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 Policy Exclusion cases and more on FLexlaw
NESBITT, Judge.
Naomi Workman was killed while driving a car in which the owner, Kenneth Willis, was a passenger. The applicable liability limits under Willis’ automobile insurance policy with Allstate were less than the uninsured-underinsured motorist limits under the policy issued by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm) to Hubert Workman, Naomi’s father. Claiming that Willis was negligent, Hubert sought underinsured motorist benefits from State Farm. When the company denied coverage, Hubert brought an action seeking a declaratory judgment that underinsured motorist benefits were available. Hubert’s motion for summary judgment was granted and State Farm appeals. We affirm.
State Farm’s denial of coverage was based on a policy provision which excluded underinsured coverage for a vehicle insured under the liability portion of the policy. It is otherwise agreed that decedent was afforded liability coverage for her liability while operating a nonowned vehicle. However, we agree with the rationale of Bowsher v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 244 Or. 549, 419 P. 2d 606 (1966), that the focus of our inquiry should be whether the injury for which a claim is made is covered by liability insurance, rather than a general inquiry into whether some kind of insurance covered, for some purposes, the automobile involved in the accident. It is undisputed that the tortfeasor, Kenneth Willis, was underinsured by $5,000. Accordingly, the uninsured-underinsured motorist benefits under State Farm’s policy must be available to Hubert Workman.1
Affirmed.
. Reid v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 352 So. 2d 1172 (Fla.1978) is distinguishable in that it involved a family-household exclusion, not applicable here.
SCHWARTZ, Judge
(specially concurring).
I concur in affirmance because the pertinent exclusion represents no more than an attempted restriction of UM coverage available to a class I insured which is invalidated by a long series of Florida decisions, which began with Mullis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 252 So. 2d 229 (Fla.1971), interpreting Sec. 627.727(1), Fla.Stat. (1981) and its predecessors. As the court notes, the sole exception to this rule, which was involved in Reid v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 352 So. 2d 1172 (Fla.1978), is inapplicable to the present situation.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jernigan v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co., 501 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…ed motorist has been the family member and fellow employee exclusions in cases involving one insurance policy on the automobile involved in the accident. Curtin, 499 So. 2d at 296. See also State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Workman, 421 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (Schwartz, J., concurring).…
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. McCLURE, 501 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…poses of uninsured motorist coverage. The statute contemplates a separate tortfeasor that is either uninsured or underinsured under a separate policy providing liability coverage. McClure cites State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Workman, 421 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), as support for her contention that the exclusion here is invalid. However, we conclude that Workman is factually distinguishable. That case involved a claimant whose daughter was killed while driving another person’s car. The cla…
-
The Travelers Ins. Cos. v. Chandler, 569 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…Co. v. Bennett, 466 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (son, who was insured for BIL under his father’s policy, was also covered for UM benefits under the same policy and any exclusion to the contrary was void); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Workman, 421 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (because daughter was afforded liability coverage while operating a non-owned vehicle under her father’s policy, the insurer could not deny UM coverage to her). Compare Valiant Ins. Co. v. Webster, 567 So. 2d 408 (Fla.1990) (becau…
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
- Mullis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 252 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 1971)
- Reid v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 352 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 1977)