JOHN A. STACK AND SUSAN STACK, APPELLANTS,
v.
ROBERT SURDACKI AND FLORIDA FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEES
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 held that a police vehicle furnished for an officer's regular use falls within the policy's regular use exclusion, denying coverage.
[1] An insurance policy exclusion for losses that occur while a motor vehicle is furnished for regular use applies to vehicles provided to employees for their regular use in…
[2] A police vehicle furnished to officers for their regular use in the course of employment falls within the unambiguous language of a regular use exclusion in an insurance…
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 intelligenceAn officer was injured while driving a police vehicle furnished for his regular use during a pursuit. The insurer denied coverage based on a policy ex…
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 Regular Use Exclusion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Stacks appeal a final summary judgment in favor of Florida Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company (Farm Bureau). We affirm.
On May 18, 1980 Mr. Stack, a Metro-Dade police officer, was on duty with another officer, Robert Surdacki. Stack was a passenger in a police vehicle driven by Surdacki which was involved in an accident while the two were in pursuit of criminal suspects.
Farm Bureau insured Robert Surdacki under a policy which excluded coverage for losses: a. that involve use of a motor vehicle in the business or occupation of you or a relative living in your household, except a private passenger auto, or farm truck, used by you, or your employee;
b. that occur while the motor vehicle is furnished to you or a member of your household for regular use.
Farm Bureau denied coverage based on these provisions and successfully moved for summary judgment. We affirm the judgment based on the regular use exclusion quoted above.
The motor vehicle involved here was owned by Metro-Dade and it was furnished to police officers for their regular use in the course of their employment. Surdacki was a police officer and, at the time of the accident, he was using a police vehicle which was available for his regular use. The First District Court of Appeal addressed this exact issue in O’Brien v. Halifax Insurance Co., 141 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962). That court reached the conclusion, with which we agree, that the police vehicle fits squarely within the clear and unambiguous language of the exclusion. See also Voelker v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 260 F. 2d 275 (7th Cir.1958); Commercial Insurance Co. v. Gardner, 233 F.Supp. 884 (E.D.S.C.1964).1
Accordingly, the summary judgment in favor of Farm Bureau is
Affirmed.
. The regular use exclusion applies whether or not the vehicle in question is a private passenger auto. See Home Ins. Co. v. Kennedy, 152 A. 2d 115 (Del.Super.Ct.1959). Consequently, it is unnecessary for us to discuss the other exclusion argued by the parties and we are not deciding whether a police vehicle is a private passenger auto under that exclusion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Charlsie Sammydra Bryant v. Windhaven Ins. Co., 173 So. 3d 1058 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…the Estate's cross-motion for summary judgment regarding the claimed inapplicability of the "regular use” exclusion, and granted the Estate’s cross-motion regarding the claimed inapplicability of the "employment” exclusion. . See Stack v. Surdacki, 479 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); O’Brien v. Halifax Ins. Co. of Mass., 141 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962). As O’Brien makes clear, it is the regular use of vehicles other than the insured's personal vehicle that brings the exclusion into operation, and this is t…
Authorities Cited
- Voelker v. The Travelers Indem. Co., 260 F.2d 275 (7th Cir. 1958)
- O'Brien v. Halifax Ins. Co. of Mass., 141 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)