FREDDIE MILLER, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JAMES FREDERICK MILLER, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; PITNEY BOWES, INC., APPELLEES
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 deceased employee's estate sued the employer and its insurer after the employee was hit by an uninsured motorist and found to have inadequate uninsured motorist coverage. The court reversed the dismissal of the insurer, holding that allegations that the employer agreed to provide "full" coverage must be interpreted to include the maximum uninsured motorist limits available under Florida law.
The court held that "fully cover" must be interpreted to include the maximum limit of uninsured motorist coverage available under Florida statutes, which would be $500,000 under the particular policy. The dismissal was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings, though the trial court may ultimately grant summary judgment for the insurer if Pitney failed to request full coverage as alleged.
[1] An employer leasing vehicles from employees and agreeing to provide insurance for them during the lease term may be liable for failing to procure the full extent of unins…
[2] An employer's agreement to "fully cover" leased vehicles and employees with insurance implies coverage up to the maximum statutory limit for uninsured motorist coverage,…
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“Under the allegations above set forth we interpret "fully cover" to include the maximum limit of uninsured motorist coverage available under the statutes of this state which under the particular policy, as referred to in the amended complaint, would be $500,000.”
Establishes the court's interpretation of the contract term "fully cover" to mean maximum statutory uninsured motorist coverage
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePitney Bowes leased automobiles from its employees for business use and agreed to provide insurance coverage. The employee's son was involved in an ac…
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 Duty To Procure Insurance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The deceased’s father was employed by Pitney Bowes, Inc. Pitney leased from their employees their automobiles for use in its business activities and agreed to provide insurance for its employees during the term of such lease. The employee’s son was involved in an accident with an uninsured motorist. An action was then brought against Pitney, the employer, and Liberty Mutual, the insurer. In an amended complaint the following is found.
“14. At the time the subject lease was entered into, the defendant PITNEY BOWES fully informed the defendant LIBERTY of the fact that said leased vehicles of the plaintiff and other employees similarly situated were for the business and/or pleasure use of said employees and fully informed LIBERTY that the vehicles were to be insured so as to fully cover PITNEY BOWES and its employees as if they had acquired their own family automobile liability insurance.
After the accident it was determined the employee was not fully insured, the total amount of uninsured motorist coverage being only $10,000.1
The trial court dismissed the complaint as to Liberty Mutual (it having tendered $10,-000) and left a cause of action pending against Pitney.2 We reverse.
Under the allegations above set forth we interpret “fully cover” to include the maximum limit of uninsured motorist coverage available under the statutes of this state which under the particular policy, as referred to in the amended complaint, would be $500,000. Crompton v. Kirkland, 157 Fla. 89,24 So. 2d 902 (1946); Dreka v. White-hair, 140 Fla. 802, 192 So. 321 (1939); Hopke v. O’Byrne, 148 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963).
Therefore the matter is returned to the trial court for further proceedings. This is not to say that the trial court may not ultimately enter a summary judgment in favor of Liberty Mutual in the event it should appear that Pitney failed to indicate or request from Liberty full coverage as alleged in paragraph 14.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
. Pitney elected to limit uninsured coverage to $10,000/$20,000 without notice to its employees.
. The complaint sounded in breach of contract for failure to provide coverage promised and negligent failure to procure promised insurance.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hopke v. O'Byrne, 148 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)
- Dreka v. Whitehair, 140 Fla. 802 (Fla. 1939)
- Gibbs Crompton v. Kirkland, 157 Fla. 89 (Fla. 1946)