WILLIAM ROBERT GOIN, A MINOR BY AND THROUGH HIS NATURAL PARENTS, WILLIAM A. GOIN AND ELIZABETH P. GOIN, HIS WIFE, AND WILLIAM A. GOIN AND ELIZABETH P. GOIN, IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES, APPELLANTS,
v.
AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE CO., 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.
The Goins appealed a summary judgment ruling that barred their minor son from recovering under an Auto-Owners insurance policy due to a family exclusion clause. The court affirmed, holding that family exclusion clauses in insurance policies are valid under Florida law and do not violate public policy or constitutional access-to-courts rights.
Family exclusion clauses in insurance policies are valid under Florida law absent statutory prohibition, and such clauses do not violate public policy or constitutional access-to-courts rights. The legislature's enactment of no-fault insurance requirements for automobiles does not prohibit family exclusion clauses, and the absence of similar provisions for boats does not change this result.
[1] A "family exclusion" clause in an insurance policy is valid absent a statutory prohibition.
[2] The absence of mandatory no-fault insurance provisions for watercraft does not prohibit the enforcement of a "family exclusion" clause in a watercraft insurance policy.
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 policy contains clear and unambiguous language to the effect that the named insured, his spouse, the relatives of either, and any other person under the age of twenty-one in the care of an insured are not covered by the policy.”
Establishes the scope and clarity of the family exclusion clause at issue
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliam A. Goin owned an outboard floater policy issued by Auto-Owners. His minor son, William Robert Goin, sustained bodily injuries in a boating acc…
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
MILLS, Judge.
In this personal injury suit, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Auto-Owners. The trial court held that William Robert Goin could not recover under an insurance policy issued by Auto-Owners because of the “family exclusion” clause contained in the policy. We affirm.
The Goins filed a complaint against Robert Ackery, Allstate Insurance Company, and Auto-Owners in connection with a boating accident in which William Robert Goin sustained bodily injuries as a result of the alleged negligence of Robert Ackery.
William A. Goin, father of the injured plaintiff, owned an “outboard floater policy” issued by Auto-Owners. The Goins alleged in their complaint that William Robert Goin was entitled to recover under that policy.
The policy contains clear and unambiguous language to the effect that the named insured, his spouse, the relatives of either, and any other person under the age of twenty-one in the care of an insured are not covered by the policy.
The Goins make two arguments on appeal. First, they contend that this “family exclusion” clause violates the public policy of this state. “Family exclusion” clauses in automobile insurance policies, absent some statutory prohibition, are clearly valid. Reid v. State Farm, Fire and Casualty Co., 352 So. 2d 1172 (Fla.1978); Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Co. v. Government Employees Insurance Co., 387 So. 2d 932 (Fla.1980). However, the Goins argue that these cases are inapplicable because automobile owners are required to have no-fault insurance. § 627.733, Florida Statutes (1981). This argument is based on a misreading of Reid. In that case, the Florida Supreme Court held that the legislature did not prohibit family-household exclusions in automobile liability insurance policies by its enactment of the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act, section 627.730, et seq., Florida Statutes (1981). Given that holding, we fail to see how the absence of no-fault provisions with regard to boats could amount to a prohibition of the “family exclusion” clause.
The Goins also contend that failure to allow recovery under the policy would violate their right of access to the courts. Article I, Section 21, Florida Constitution. That argument is clearly without merit since they are free to pursue their rights against the other two defendants.
AFFIRMED.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C.J., and McCORD, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Reid v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 352 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 1977)
- Fla. Farm Bureau Ins. Co. v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., 387 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1980)