ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
DANIEL PATRICK DASCOLI, 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.
Allstate appeals a judgment confirming an arbitration award that held Dascoli was entitled to uninsured motorist coverage under his second auto policy despite being injured as a passenger in a vehicle owned by him and covered under a different Allstate policy. The court affirmed, holding that a vehicle is uninsured when the responsible party has no available insurance coverage due to policy exclusions, making the uninsured motorist provision applicable.
The court held that Dascoli was not entitled to recover under the liability coverage of the Chevrolet van policy but was entitled to recover under the uninsured motorist provisions of the Dodge van policy. A motor vehicle is uninsured for purposes of uninsured motorist coverage when the responsible party has no insurance coverage available to protect the injured party, regardless of whether both policies are issued by the same insurer.
[1] An insurance policy exclusion limiting uninsured motorist coverage for vehicles owned by the insured or a family member is generally invalid.
[2] A motor vehicle is considered uninsured for purposes of uninsured motorist coverage if the responsible motorist has no insurance coverage available to protect the injured…
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“The purpose of the uninsured motorist statute is to provide liability coverage to innocent parties.”
Establishes the foundational policy underlying uninsured motorist coverage interpretation
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 1, 1983, Dascoli was injured as a passenger in a Chevrolet van driven by his wife. Allstate issued both a liability policy on the Chevrolet van…
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 Statutory Immunity cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, Judge.
Allstate Insurance Company appeals from a final judgment confirming an arbitration award of damages, and attorney’s fees and costs to Dascoli. On May 1, 1983, Dascoli was injured while riding as a passenger in a Chevrolet van driven by his wife. At the time of the accident, the van was covered by a liability insurance policy issued by Allstate.1 Arbitration determined that appellee’s wife was 90% negligent in causing the accident and that Das-coli was 10% negligent.
In addition, Allstate had issued a second business auto policy on a Dodge van also owned by Dascoli. This second policy provided uninsured motorist coverage which excluded: (1) any vehicle owned by the insured or any family member; and (2) bodily injury sustained by the insured while occupying a vehicle owned by the insured which was not covered under the policy. Both parties moved for declaratory judgments on the issue of coverage, based on the language of the insurance policies. The lower court held that liability coverage on the Chevrolet van was not available to appellee, but that appellee was entitled to recover under the uninsured motorist provisions of the Dodge policy. We affirm.
This case is controlled by our previous decisions in Boynton v. Allstate, 443 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) and Curtin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 449 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). The purpose of the uninsured motorist statute is to provide liability coverage to innocent parties.2 Generally, an insurer may not limit the applicability of uninsured motorist protection.3 In Boyn-ton, we held that a motor vehicle is uninsured if the motorist who caused the accident has no insurance coverage available for the protection of the injured party. A policy which, because of exclusions or statutory immunity, provides no coverage for a particular loss is tantamount to no insurance coverage at all. Boynton. Reid v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 352 So. 2d 1172 (Fla.1977) is not controlling because in Reid, both the liability insurance on the vehicle causing the injury and the uninsured motorist coverage were contained in the same policy. But, see, Harrison v. Metropolitan Property and Liability Insurance Company, 475 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH and COWART, JJ„ concur. .This policy excluded coverage for damages suffered by family members while occupying any vehicle owned by insured or owned by any family member which was not a "covered auto” under the policy.
. Lee v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 339 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 348 So. 2d 954 (Fla.1977).
. Id.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
AMICA Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sylvan A. Wells, 507 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…contend with and we believe this still bars suits as between spouses. To recover the injured person must be “legally entitled to recover” and under Florida law a family exclusion clause in a policy is valid. In Allstate Insurance Company v. Dascoli, 477 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) the court held that a passenger who had been injured in a van driven by his wife could recover under a second policy on another vehicle also owned by Dascoli. That holding was quashed by the Florida Supreme Court 497 So. 2d 1 (Fl…
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Dascoli, 497 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1986)…OVERTON, Justice. This is a petition to review Allstate Insurance Co. v. Dascoli, 477 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), in which the district court relies on Boynton v. Allstate Insurance Co., 443 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), to allow recovery by Dascoli under the uninsured motorist provisions of an insurance policy. Dascoli was injured while…
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)
- Boynton v. Allstate Ins. Co., 443 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Harrison v. Metro. Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co., 475 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)