DALE LEE HARRISON, INDIVIDUALLY, AND DALE LEE HARRISON, AS NATURAL FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND OF MICHELE HARRISON, A MINOR, APPELLANT,
v.
METROPOLITAN PROPERTY AND LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
This case concerns whether a family exclusion clause in an insurance policy invalidates uninsured motorist coverage when the insured is injured by a family member driving a covered vehicle. The court held that the exclusion is valid and does not render the vehicle uninsured for the purpose of uninsured motorist coverage.
No, uninsured motorist coverage is not available in this situation. The restriction on uninsured motorist coverage is valid because it prevents the family exclusion clause from being rendered meaningless.
[1] A family exclusion provision in an insurance policy, which excludes liability coverage for bodily injury to a spouse residing in the same household, is valid when applied…
[2] A vehicle covered by an insurance policy cannot be considered an uninsured motor vehicle for the purpose of uninsured motorist coverage, even if it is uninsured as to a s…
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“The policy contained a family exclusion provision that liability coverage would not be available for “bodily injury to you or any person related by ... marriage ... who resides in the same household as you....””
Establishes the existence and content of the family exclusion clause in the insurance policy.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff was injured while a passenger in the family car, driven by his wife. The insurance policy contained a family exclusion clause and a prov…
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 Non-Owned Automobile Coverage cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Judge.
We affirm the trial court’s summary judgment for defendant insurance company based upon the determination that no uninsured motorist coverage was available to plaintiff.
Plaintiff was injured while a passenger in the family car which was named as an insured vehicle under the policy issued by defendant and which was driven by plaintiff’s wife. The policy contained a family exclusion provision that liability coverage would not be available for “bodily injury to you or any person related by ... marriage ... who resides in the same household as you....” Also, for purposes of uninsured motorist coverage the policy provided that a vehicle is not uninsured if it is “a covered automobile or a non-owned automobile regularly furnished or available for use by you or any relative.” Plaintiff contends that his wife was an uninsured motorist as a result of the family exclusion and that the foregoing restriction on uninsured motorist coverage is invalid. Notwithstanding what might appear to be a proscription in Lee v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 339 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), against any restrictions on uninsured motorist coverage, 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, and was not involved in the accident. Also, as concluded in Reid under similar policy-provisions defining uninsured vehicles, in this case a vehicle covered by the policy cannot be an uninsured motor vehicle for the purpose of uninsured motorist coverage even though it is, in fact, uninsured as to plaintiffs wife. 352 So. 2d at 1173.
Affirmed.
GRIMES, A.C.J., and DANAHY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jernigan v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co., 501 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…, n. 4. . We do note that our holding is contrary to the holding of Barlow v. Auto Owners Insurance Company, 358 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), but this decision predated Boynton. Harrison v. Metropolitan Property and Liability Insurance Company, 475 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), approved in Dascoli, also involved the family exclusion. .The only break in the phalanx of cases requiring that uninsured motorist coverage parallel the theoretical liability coverage of the uninsured motorist has been the famil…
-
Brixius v. Allstate Ins. Co., 549 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…s the position that Boynton should have overruled Reid in these circumstances. See Allstate Insurance Co. v. Dascoli, 497 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1986), which approves the reasoning of this court in Harrison v. Metropolitan Property & Liability Insurance Co., 475 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). But Boynton specifically distinguishes, and in effect reaffirms, Reid in the following language: Allstate, citing Reid v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 352 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 1977), asserts in its brief that a valid exclusion i…
-
Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Kitteridge S. Fitzgibbon, 568 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…1987); Orston v. Allstate Insurance Co., 502 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 511 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 1987); Larsen v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins., 485 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Harrison v. Metropolitan Property and Liability Insurance Co., 475 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Curtin v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co., 449 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Linehan v. Alkhabbaz, 398 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). It apparently does not matter whether or not a non-family member was the negligent driv…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities 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)
- United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Knight, 473 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Tompkins v. State, 473 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)