MICHAEL A. SEMBRIC, APPELLANT/CROSS APPELLEE,
v.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE/CROSS APPELLANT
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.
A nephew sought uninsured motorist coverage under his uncle's Allstate auto insurance policy after a motorcycle accident injury. The policy covered relatives living in the same household, but Allstate denied coverage, arguing the uncle was not a permanent resident of the uncle's Florida home. The court affirmed the trial court's grant of a new trial, holding that the policy's "household" provision requires permanent cohabitation, which was absent here.
Yes. The court held that the policy's household provision requires permanent cohabitation. The nephew and uncle did not live together on a permanent basis because the uncle spent only seven weeks per year at the Florida home and maintained his primary residence and life activities in Ohio.
[1] An automobile insurance policy provision covering a relative of the named insured requires that the relative be a resident of the same household as the named insured.
[2] For purposes of an insurance policy's "resident family household member" provision, members of the household must dwell or live together on a permanent basis.
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“We answer in the affirmative”
The court's holding that a policy with a resident family household member provision requires that members dwell or live together on a permanent basis.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe nephew was injured as a passenger on a motorcycle and sought uninsured motorist coverage under his uncle's Allstate policy. The nephew lived in 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 Automobile Insurance Policy Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Chief Judge.
This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial because the manifest weight of the evidence precluded the jury from finding that a nephew was entitled to coverage under his uncle’s automobile insurance policy. We affirm with a modification.
The nephew suffered injuries as a result of an accident while a passenger on a motorcycle and sought uninsured motorist coverage through his uncle’s insurance policy with Allstate. Under the terms of the policy, Allstate had agreed to insure against liability incurred either by the named insured or by a relative of the named insured if both were residents of the same household. At the time of the accident, the nephew was living in a house owned by his uncle in Boca Raton, Florida, but Allstate denied coverage nevertheless contending that his uncle was not a resident of the Boca Raton house, only visited it occasionally and was in fact a resident of Cleveland, Ohio. Subsequently, the insurance company brought a cause of action for declaratory relief to determine its rights and liabilities under the policy. The nephew counterclaimed alleging entitlement to uninsured motorist coverage, the cause went to trial and the jury determined that the nephew was entitled to the uninsured motorist coverage. Thereafter, the trial court granted Allstate’s motion for a new trial.
The sole question meriting discussion is whether a policy with a resident family household member provision, requires that those members of the “household” dwell or live together on a permanent basis. See Griffin v. General Guaranty Ins. Co., 254 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). We answer in the affirmative.
Here, the record clearly demonstrates that the nephew and the uncle did not dwell in the same household on a permanent basis. It is clear that the uncle never visited the Boca Raton home more than seven weeks out of any one year. Moreover for the past twenty years, the uncle has worked and lived in Cleveland forty five weeks each year with his three sons. He pays Ohio State income taxes and is a registered voter there. The uncle does not hold a Florida’s driver license and his three automobiles are all registered and licensed in Ohio. Although the uncle purchased the Boca Raton house with the intention of some day retiring to reside in Florida, that alone does not make him a permanent resident of this locality now. Thus, the evidence unquestionably establishes that the nephew and the uncle do not live together on a permanent basis.
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s determination that the jury verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Furthermore, we see no need for a new trial and instead we direct the trial judge to enter a final judgment in favor of Allstate.
DELL, J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Bennett, 466 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…included within uninsured motorist coverage for the same reason.) On the other hand, as explained above, in the case at hand the son was covered by the father’s relevant basic liabil [*245] ity insurance coverage. Sembric v. Allstate Insurance Co., 434 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) and Gilligan v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 265 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972) are similarly distinguishable from the case at hand. It may be argued that abstract fairness would require a conclusion different from that which w…
-
Sutherland v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 493 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…tion who is a resident of your household.” Appellee, Glens Falls Insurance Company, perceives the facts and the law rather differently, and cites cases which, in its judgment, support the directed verdict. In Sembric v. Allstate Insurance Company, 434 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), the trial court had entered an order granting a new trial, on the ground the jury’s finding that the nephew was covered by his uncle’s uninsured motorists insurance was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. On appeal,…
-
Alava v. Allstate Ins. Co., 497 So. 2d 1286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…rminative of the issue of residency for purposes of insurance coverage. [*1288] Allstate relies on factually distinguishable cases to support its contention that Ernesto was not a resident of his father’s house. In Sembric v. Allstate Insurance Co., 434 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), review denied, 443 So. 2d 980 (Fla.1984), the court held that an uncle, who had lived in Ohio for twenty years, paid Ohio income taxes, and was a registered Ohio voter, was not a resident of his nephew’s home for insurance purpo…
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
- Griffin v. Gen. Guar. Ins. Co., 254 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)