UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
DEBORAH KNIGHT, 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.
The court reversed summary judgment for the insured, holding that uninsured motorist coverage did not apply because the facts were distinguishable from prior cases establishing coverage eligibility.
Uninsured motorist coverage under the policy did not apply to the insured's claim because the factual circumstances were distinguishable from cases establishing such coverage.
[1] Uninsured motorist coverage does not apply when the insured vehicle and the uninsured motor vehicle involved in the injury are the same vehicle, distinguishing cases wher…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellee Knight held an automobile insurance policy with uninsured motorist coverage issued by appellant United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company a…
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 Public Policy In Insurance Law cases and more on FLexlaw
OTT, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant seeks review of the trial court’s order granting final summary judgment in favor of appellee and declaring that appellee was covered under the uninsured motorists coverage provision of an automobile insurance policy issued to her by appellant. We reverse, because we can find no meaningful distinction between the present case and Reid v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 352 So. 2d 1172 (Fla.1977); Porr v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 452 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Curtin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 449 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). We further find that appellee’s reliance on Lee v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 339 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), is misplaced. While the provision under consideration here is similar to the provision which the Lee court struck as against public policy and void, 339 So. 2d at 671, we find that the facts in the Lee case differ significantly from the present case. See also Reid, 352 So. 2d at 1174; Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Fonck, 344 So. 2d 595, 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) (Lee involved two separate insurance policies and the “uninsured motor vehicle” which caused the injury in Lee was not the same vehicle as the “insured motor vehicle” named in the policy).
Accordingly, the trial court’s order which granted final summary judgment in favor of appellee is REVERSED.
DANAHY and LEHAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harrison v. Metro. Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co., 475 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…rage, the restriction involved here is valid because otherwise the family exclusion in the policy would be rendered meaningless. See Reid v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 352 So. 2d 1172 (Fla.1977); United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Knight, 473 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). For the same reason plaintiff is not entitled to uninsured motorist coverage on another automobile which was owned by plaintiff, was covered by the same policy, [*1372] and was not involved in the accident. Also, as concluded i…
Authorities Cited
- Reid v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 352 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 1977)
- LEE v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 339 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Curtin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 449 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Fonck, 344 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Sheran Porr v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 452 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)