WAYNE HURLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE 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.
Wayne Hurley, an emancipated adult passenger in his father's vehicle, was injured in a collision with an insured tortfeasor and sought uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage under his father's State Farm policy. The court affirmed the denial of coverage, holding that when the tortfeasor's insurance equals the insured's uninsured motorist coverage, no recovery is available under the uninsured motorist provision.
The appellant is not entitled to uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage because the tortfeasor carried insurance equal in amount to the father's uninsured motorist coverage. Where insurance available from the insured's own carrier equals the tortfeasor's coverage, no recovery is available under the uninsured motorist provision.
[1] An insured passenger is not entitled to recover under their own uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage when the tortfeasor's insurance coverage is equal to the insured'…
[2] Uninsured motorist coverage is not applicable when the tortfeasor's liability coverage is equal to the insured's 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“The appellant is neither an uninsured nor an underinsured motorist. The appellee admitted that appellant was insured under his father's insurance policy.”
Establishes that the appellant's status as an additional insured under the father's policy defeats the uninsured/underinsured motorist claim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWayne Hurley was an emancipated, married father of three and a passenger in a vehicle driven by his father, Robert Hurley. The vehicle collided with o…
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 Additional Insured cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Judge.
The appellant, Wayne Hurley, appeals from a final judgment on the pleadings entered in favor of appellee, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The appellant was a passenger in a vehicle driven by his father, Robert Hurley. The vehicle was involved in a collision with another vehicle driven by Kathleen Eveland and owned by Richard Fero.
At the time of the accident, the appellant was emancipated, married and a father of three children. He was not a resident of Robert Hurley’s household at any time material to this cause of action.
The vehicle driven by Kathleen Eveland was insured at the time of the accident with United Services Automobile Association (USAA) for $10,000 per person and $20,000 per accident.
The appellant’s parents filed claims for personal injuries against Kathleen Eveland and USAA. They received $19,600 from USAA. This left $400 in available insurance for the appellant.
Robert Hurley was insured with State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. for $10,000 per person and $20,000 per accident. This included uninsured motorist coverage which the parties admit covered the appellant as an additional insured. State Farm denied that the uninsured motorist coverage was applicable to the appellant’s claim, arguing that their liability coverage for uninsured motorists was equal to the coverage available under the tortfeasors USAA policy-
The appellant contends that he is entitled to underinsured motorist coverage from State Farm up to the limit of $10,000 exclusive of the $400 available from USAA, since State Farm had an uninsured motorist policy for $10,000 per person and USAA had only $400 in remaining coverage available to the appellant. We disagree with the appellant’s contention.
This court in Pulley v. Security Mutual Casualty Co., 412 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), relied on Holt v. State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co., 385 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), petition for review dismissed, 394 So. 2d 1152 (Fla.1981), which held that the appellants were not entitled to recover under their uninsured motorist coverage where the tortfeasor was insured in the same amount as the insured himself. We believe these two cases control the case sub judice.
The appellant is neither an uninsured nor an underinsured motorist. The appellee admitted that appellant was insured under his father’s insurance policy. The Holt and Pulley decisions state that where the insurance available to the appellant from his own carrier is equal to the coverage carried by the. tortfeasors, the appellant recovers nothing. Therefore, there is no coverage available to the appellant since Kathleen Eveland carried insurance equal in amount to the uninsured motorist coverage of Rob ert Hurley. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
AFFIRMED.
BOARDMAN, A.C.J., and RYDER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bulone v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 660 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…rtfea-sor had $100,000 limits of liability coverage, i.e., limits equal to the underinsured coverage, a payment of the liability coverage caused the claimant to receive no underin-sured motorist payment. See Hurley v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 438 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). This was true even when only one of several tortfeasors had coverage equal to the claimant’s underin-sured motorist coverage. See Travelers Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 371 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 385 So. 2d 762 (Fla.…
-
Smith v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 479 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…’ policy is zero and that Smith is therefore entitled to compensation from his own carrier up to the policy limit of $55,000.00. State Farm argues that this case should be controlled by our decision in Hurley v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Co., 438 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). We are, however, able to distinguish Hurley. For this purpose, a brief review of the facts in Hurley is appropriate. At the time of the accident in question, the Hurley vehicle carried at least three persons, all of whom were inj…
Authorities Cited
- Holt v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co., 385 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- W. Bakery & Pastry, Inc. v. Kent Ins. Co., 412 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)