WALTER L. CULLARS AND LINDA LEA CULLARS, HUSBAND AND WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
MANATEE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Employees injured while working in county vehicles can challenge whether their employer properly rejected uninsured motorist coverage in its liability insurance policy. The court reversed dismissal of the Cullars' complaint where Mrs. Cullars, a deputy sheriff, was injured in a multi-car accident and sought to establish that Manatee County failed to properly reject uninsured motorist coverage.
An employee has standing to challenge whether the employer made a proper rejection of uninsured motorist protection. The complaint stated a valid cause of action on the theory that Manatee County failed to make a proper rejection of such coverage, which is a question of fact for resolution at trial. The court rejected the theory that the County had an affirmative duty to provide uninsured motorist coverage.
[1] An employee may have standing to question whether their employer made a proper rejection of uninsured motorist coverage.
[2] The question of whether uninsured motorist coverage was properly rejected is a question of fact.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“There is authority for the proposition that an employee has standing to question whether his employer made a proper rejection of uninsured motorist protection.”
Establishes that employees can challenge employer rejection decisions regarding 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 intelligenceOn May 22, 1981, Mrs. Cullars, a deputy sheriff employed by Manatee County, was injured in an automobile accident while driving a county vehicle at an…
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 Uninsured Motorist Coverage cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellants (Mr. and Mrs. Cullars) brought this suit to recover damages for injuries sustained by Mrs. Cullars in an automobile accident. On May 22, 1981, Mrs. Cullars was employed as a deputy sheriff by appellee (Manatee County). On that date, while driving a vehicle owned by Manatee County, she stopped at an intersection intending to make a left turn. A vehicle directly behind her also stopped, but a third vehicle driven by William Bernard Frazier failed to stop and struck the second vehicle, which in turn collided with the automobile occupied by Mrs. Cullars.
Frazier’s liability insurer paid its policy limits of $10,000 to Mrs. Cullars. Manatee County had purchased automobile liability insurance coverage with limits of liability of $500,000 per person and $500,000 per accident, the County being the named insured; however, the County's policy did not provide uninsured motorist coverage.
In this action, Mr. and Mrs. Cullars sought to establish that Manatee County had a duty to provide uninsured motorist coverage to Mrs. Cullars or, alternatively, that there was uninsured motorist coverage under the County’s policy because the County did not make a proper rejection of uninsured motorist coverage. The trial judge dismissed the Cullars’ complaint with prejudice and they appeal. We reverse.
We reject the Cullars’ first theory of liability; that is, that there was a duty on the part of Manatee County to provide uninsured motorist coverage to Mrs. Cul-lars. The facts alleged in the complaint simply do not present a theory under which such a duty could be found. But the complaint clearly alleged that Manatee County failed to make a proper rejection of uninsured motorist coverage when it acquired its liability policy. At the time of Mrs. Cullars’ accident, the law did not require that such a rejection be in writing. § 627.-727(1), Fla.Stat. (1983); Kimbrell v. Great American Insurance Co., 420 So. 2d 1086 (Fla.1982). There is authority for the proposition that an employee has standing to question whether .his employer made a proper rejection of uninsured motorist protection. Lane v. Waste Management, Inc., 432 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Whether there was a proper rejection of such coverage is a question of fact. Kimbrell.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
SCHOONOVER, J., and SHAFER, ROBERT T., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Quirk v. Anthony, 563 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…984) (corresponds to Ch. 84-41, § 1(1), Laws of Fla.). Prior to the amendments in 1982 and 1984, this court held that an employee had standing to question whether his employer had made a proper rejection of UM protection. Cullars v. Manatee County, 463 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (date of policy issuance unknown, accident on May 22, 1981). In St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Smith, 504 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 511 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 1987) (policy initially issued in 1978, accident on Ap…
-
Duane v. The Travelers Ins. Co., 496 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…2 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1983); Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Fulton, 362 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), cert. denied, 368 So. 2d 1361 (Fla.1979); American Motorists Ins. Co. v. Weingarten, 355 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). . See Cullars v. Manatee County, 463 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).…
Authorities Cited
- Dorman K. Kimbrell v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 420 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 1982)
- Lane v. Waste Mgmt., Inc., 432 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)