SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, APPELLANT,
v.
LAWRENCE AARON WARE, 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.
Safeco Insurance appeals a declaratory judgment applying Florida law to an insurance contract executed in New Jersey. The court affirms, holding that Florida law governs the uninsured motorist coverage limits because the insured vehicle was garaged and used in Florida and the insurer had notice of the Florida risk, making Florida the state with the most significant relationship to the insurance contract.
Florida law is applicable. The court held that despite the contract being negotiated, executed, and delivered in New Jersey, Florida has a significant relationship to the insurance contract because the covered vehicle was garaged and in constant use in Florida, the insurer had notice of the Florida risk, the insured was a Florida resident, and the accident occurred in Florida.
[1] Florida law applies to an insurance contract negotiated, executed, and delivered in New Jersey when the covered vehicle was principally garaged in Florida and the insurer…
[2] A state has a significant relationship to an insurance contract, justifying the application of its law, when the insured vehicle is garaged and in constant use in that st…
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“Florida has a significant relationship to the insurance contract at issue so as to determine that this is not an appropriate case for the application of comity principles.”
Establishes the trial court's rationale for rejecting the New Jersey choice of law despite the contract being executed there
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn December 21, 1978, Lawrence Aaron Ware was injured in an automobile accident in Broward County, Florida, while driving a vehicle owned by Bill Jax …
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 Significant Relationship Test cases and more on FLexlaw
HURLEY, Judge.
The question in this case is whether to apply the law of Florida or that of New Jersey to determine the effect of an insurance contract made in New Jersey, but with notice that it would be performed, at least in part, in Florida. We affirm and hold that Florida law is applicable.
The undisputed, relevant facts are as follows: On December 21, 1978, the plaintiff, Lawrence Aaron Ware, was injured in an automobile accident that occurred in Bro-ward County, Florida. Ware was driving an automobile owned by and registered to Bill Jax Scaffolding, Inc. Because Ware was driving with the express consent of the owner, he was protected by an insurance policy issued to Bill Jax Scaffolding, Inc., by the defendant, Safeco Insurance Company of America. This insurance agreement was negotiated, executed and delivered in New Jersey. Although disputed, the record further indicates that when the insurance was purchased, Safeco was on notice that the vehicle would be principally garaged in Florida.
Florida and New Jersey have different statutory provisions for uninsured motorist coverage.1 Without detailing the specifics of the varying provisions, suffice it to say that under Florida law Safeco would be liable for $90,000 whereas, under New Jersey law, Safeco would be liable only for $5,000. The trial court applied Florida law for reasons set forth in its final declaratory judgment:
D. The aforementioned insurance agreement was negotiated, executed and delivered in the State of New Jersey. However, notwithstanding the significance of locus of the contract urged by Defendant, SAFECO, the Court is of the opinion that Florida has a significant relationship to the insurance contract at issue so as to determine that this is not an appropriate case for the application of comity principles. The Court’s opinion is based upon an evidentiary demonstration revealing that:
1. The covered vehicle was garaged and/or in constant use in Florida for at least six (6) months prior to the accident.
2. That the Defendant, SAFECO, had appropriate notice of the exposure to a Florida risk, at least since June of 1978 (the time of entering into the contract, and some six months prior to the accident).
3. The Plaintiff, LAWRENCE AARON WARE, was at all times material to the cause of action a resident of the State of Florida.
4. The accident occurred in Broward County, Florida.
5. The risk of the policy as to the vehicle concerned, was centered in Florida and only minimal contacts with New Jersey existed in terms of actual risk.
Since the above findings are supported by competent substantial evidence, we affirm on the authority of Gillen v. United Service Automobile Ass’n, 300 So. 2d 3 (Fla.1974) and Decker v. Great American Insurance Co., 392 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).
AFFIRMED.
GLICKSTEIN and DELL, JJ., concur. . Compare § 627.727, Fla.Stat. (1981), with N.J.S.A. § 39:6B-1 and N.J.S.A. § 39:6A-3. See also Gorton v. Reliance Insurance Co., 77 N.J. 563, 391 A. 2d 1219 (1978).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Roach, 945 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 2006)…. In reaching its holding, however, [*1168] the court nevertheless relied on our discussion of that test in Gillen and the apparent application of that test in several district court cases decided before Sturiano. See Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Ware, 424 So. 2d 907, 908 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (affirming the trial court’s determination that Florida “ ‘ha[d] a significant relationship’ to the insurance contract at issue”); Petrik v. N.H. Ins. Co., 379 So. 2d 1287, 1290 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (noting that “[t]he State…
-
Martin Brooks ad Litem of the Estate of Vito Sturiano v. Sturiano, 497 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…da law to be applied to a contract consummated in another state. Gillen v. United Services Automobile Association, 300 So. 2d at 3; Arnica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Gifford, 434 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Ware, 424 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Decker v. Great American Insurance Co., 392 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), rev. denied, 399 So. 2d 1143 (Fla.1981). However, that is not correct. Florida courts have applied Florida law in interpreting an insurance contract, usi…
-
AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Diamond, 472 So. 2d 1312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…policy issued in New Hampshire, insured car was garaged in Florida, and risk of policy was centered in Florida, Florida public policy extended to invalidate “other insurance” clause in New Hampshire policy); Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Ware, 424 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (where Florida resident injured in Florida had insurance policy issued in New Jersey, insured car was garaged in Florida, risk of policy was centered in Florida and insurance company was notified of exposure to risk in Florida, F…
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
- Gillen v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 300 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 1974)
- Decker v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 392 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)