JOSEPH VANDERWALKER, APPELLANT,
v.
COLONIAL PENN INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, 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.
Joseph Vanderwalker, injured while riding his uninsured motorcycle, sought uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits from his step-father's insurance policy. The trial court dismissed his complaint, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the policy's exclusion of coverage for injuries sustained while occupying an uninsured vehicle was permissible under Florida law.
The exclusion is permissible under Florida's uninsured motorist statute. An insured is protected only to the extent of the coverage on the vehicle involved in the accident, and therefore an insured has no coverage under an uninsured motorist provision when the insured has no coverage on the vehicle involved in the accident.
[1] An uninsured motorist statute in effect prior to chapter 80-364, Laws of Florida, permitted an insurance policy exclusion for bodily injury sustained by an insured while…
[2] An insurance policy exclusion for bodily injury sustained by an insured while occupying a non-insured auto owned by the insured or a resident relative is permissible unde…
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“An 'insured is protected only to the extent of the coverage he has on the vehicle involved in the accident.'”
Establishes the central principle that uninsured motorist coverage is limited to the extent of coverage on the specific vehicle involved in the accident.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Vanderwalker was injured while riding his own uninsured motorcycle in an accident caused by an underinsured tortfeasor whose liability limit…
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 Anti-Stacking Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
OTT, Chief Judge.
Appellant’s second amended complaint alleged that while riding his own uninsured motorcycle he sustained injuries in excess of the underinsured tortfeasor’s liability limits. The accident occurred prior to the effective date of chapter 80-364, Laws of Florida, which rendered the “anti-stacking” statute, section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (1979), inapplicable to uninsured/underin-sured motorist coverage. Appellant, a resident relative of his step-father’s household, sued appellee, his step-father’s insurer, to collect uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits. The complaint was dismissed with prejudice, the trial court specifying no grounds for the dismissal.
The policy excluded from uninsured motorist coverage “bodily injury to an insured person while occupying an auto that is owned by you or any resident relative but is not an insured auto under this coverage.” Appellant argues that such an exclusion was prohibited by the uninsured motorist statute in effect when this case arose. The Florida Supreme Court recently decided to the contrary, holding that section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (Supp.1976), permitted such an exclusion. New Hampshire Insurance Group v. Harbach, No. 62,226, 439 So. 2d 1383 (Fla.1983). The supreme court stated:
We concur with the reasoning of the Second District Court of Appeal in [State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v.] Wimpee [376 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)]. Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (Supp.1976), provides that an “insured is protected only to the extent of the coverage he has on the vehicle involved in the accident.” As the court in Wimpee said, “[w]e are unable to interpret this other than to provide for no coverage when the insured has no coverage on the vehicle involved in the accident.” 376 So. 2d at 21.
439 So. 2d at 1385.
We need not decide the validity of the policy definition of “insured” pertinent to the uninsured motorist coverage which excludes from that coverage any insured while occupying a motorcycle. The end result would remain the same — appellant is not insured under his step-father’s uninsured motorist coverage.
The decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
HOBSON and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Wimpee, 376 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Enmund v. State, 439 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 1983)
- NEW Hampshire Ins. Grp. v. Harbach, 439 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 1983)