AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
WINONA KAY KEMP QUEEN, ETC., 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.
Auto-Owners Insurance Company appealed a judgment holding it liable under the uninsured motorist provision of its policy for a daughter who was killed as a passenger. The court affirmed, holding that because the daughter qualified as a covered relative under the policy's basic liability coverage, she was also entitled to uninsured motorist coverage despite a restrictive provision excluding relatives who own their own automobiles.
Cindy was entitled to uninsured motorist coverage under her mother's policy because she qualified as a covered relative for basic liability purposes. Any restriction on uninsured motorist coverage that conflicts with the scope of basic liability coverage is invalid, as uninsured motorist coverage is statutorily intended to provide reciprocal protection equivalent to liability coverage.
[1] An automobile liability insurance policy exclusion that denies uninsured motorist coverage to an insured while occupying a motor vehicle owned by the named insured or a r…
[2] Uninsured motorist coverage under Florida law is intended to provide the reciprocal equivalent of automobile liability coverage, protecting insureds against bodily injury…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“uninsured motorist coverage prescribed by Section 627.0851 is statutorily intended to provide the reciprocal or mutual equivalent of automobile liability coverage prescribed by the Financial Responsibility Law, i.e., to say coverage where an uninsured motorist negligently inflicts bodily injury or death upon a named insured, or any of his family relatives resident in his household, or any lawful occupants of the insured automobile covered in his automobile liability policy.”
Establishes the statutory purpose of uninsured motorist coverage as providing reciprocal protection equivalent to liability coverage
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCindy L. Kemp, a passenger in an insured automobile, was killed in an accident. Cindy lived with her mother, Winona Kay Kemp Queen, who owned two auto…
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
[*499] ORFINGER, Judge.
The defendant insurance company appeals from a final judgment declaring it to be liable under the uninsured motorist provision of its insurance policy.
The decedent, Cindy L. Kemp, was killed while a passenger in the automobile of Marjorie L. Carlton. Appellee, as personal representative of her daughter’s estate, settled with Carlton’s insurance carrier for the limits of that policy, and then sought uninsured motorist coverage from her own carrier, Auto-Owners. The policy provisions presented to the trial court for interpretation are identical to those discussed in Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Bennett, 466 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), on rehearing, and agreeing with the reasoning of that case, we affirm the judgment below.
Cindy lived at home with her mother, Winona Kay Kemp Queen. Winona owned two automobiles, both of which were insured by Auto-Owners. In addition to liability coverage, each automobile was covered for $15,000 in uninsured motorist coverage. It is undisputed that Cindy was a “relative” of and a resident in the same household as her mother. It is also undisputed that Cindy owned an automobile in her own name and had a separate policy of insurance on that automobile, also issued by Auto-Owners.
As in Bennett, Cindy was covered by basic liability coverage under her mother’s policy, which extended that protection to “... any relative who lives with you.” Nothing in the policy limits this coverage only to relatives who do not own a car. On the other hand, the uninsured motorist coverage of Winona’s policy extends that protection to “... any relative living with you who does not own a car.”
In Mullis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 252 So. 2d 229 (Fla.1971), the court said:
In sum, our holding is that uninsured motorist coverage prescribed by Section 627.0851 is statutorily intended to provide the reciprocal or mutual equivalent of automobile liability coverage prescribed by the Financial Responsibility Law, i.e., to say coverage where an uninsured motorist negligently inflicts bodily injury or death upon a named insured, or any of his family relatives resident in his household, or any lawful occupants of the insured automobile covered in his automobile liability policy. To achieve this purpose, no policy exclusions contrary to the statute of any of the class of family insureds are permissible....
Id. at 237, 238.
Because Cindy was entitled to basic liability coverage as a relative and resident of her mother’s household, she was also entitled to the protection of the uninsured motorist coverage afforded by that policy, and any attempt to limit the latter by a restrictive provision not legally applicable to the liability coverage is invalid. Bennett. We agree with Bennett that France v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 380 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) is distinguishable on its facts. In France, the daughter was not an insured for basic liability coverage under the terms of her father’s policy, so there was no conflict between the basic liability coverage and the uninsured motorist coverage which also excluded her. AFFIRMED.
COBB, C.J., and COWART, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Douglas, 654 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 1995)…. Id. at 237-38. These two statements initiated a debate over uninsured motorist coverage which re-suited in disparate decisions in the district courts, as well as disparate statements about Mullis by this Court. See Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Queen, 468 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); France v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 380 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Coleman v. Florida Ins. Guaranty Ass’n, Inc., 517 So. 2d 686, 689 (Fla.1988). The factual situation involved here also stirred debate. At the time of the acci…
-
Valiant Ins. Co. v. Webster, 567 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1990)…licable; whereas, if the liability provisions did not apply to a given accident, the uninsured motorist provisions of that policy would also not apply (except with respect to occupants of the insured automobile). E.g., Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Queen, 468 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Bennett, 466 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); France v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 380 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). 1 The decedent, Christopher Manniel, was not a resident relative of Clyde Manniel at the t…
-
Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Phillips, 609 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…I insureds. Mullis at 238. In the past, this court has rejected exclusions similar to the above based on Mullis. Lewis v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 503 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), rev. denied, 511 So. 2d 297 (Fla.1987); Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Queen, 468 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). In 1987, the Florida Legislature renumbered and redrafted the UM statute to allow insurers to offer UM policies which contain the following limitation: The uninsured motorist coverage provided by the policy does not apply to t…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mullis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 252 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 1971)
- France v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 380 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Bennett, 466 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)