MOLLY SEALEY, APPELLANT,
v.
CORONET 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.
Molly Sealey challenged Coronet Insurance's denial of coverage under a liability policy issued to her daughter-in-law Kathryn Sealey for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. The court reversed summary judgment, holding that the policy's family-member exclusion requires the plaintiff to be 'residing in the same household,' which involves a factual question that cannot be resolved on summary judgment when evidence shows they lived separately under the same roof.
Summary judgment was improper because the policy language requires the plaintiff to be 'residing in the same household' (not merely living in the same house), and the record presents a genuine issue of material fact whether Molly Sealey was residing in her own self-supported household separate from Kathryn Sealey's household.
[1] A liability insurance policy exclusion for bodily injury sustained by a "member of the family of an insured residing in the same household as the insured" applies only if…
[2] A mother-in-law is considered a "member of the family" for purposes of a family member exclusion in a liability insurance policy.
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 plaintiff Molly Sealey was living in the same house as the insured Kathryn Sealey at the time of the automobile accident sued upon, but there was no showing below that the said plaintiff was "residing in the same household as the insured," (emphasis supplied) as required by the above exclusion.”
Establishes the critical distinction between living in the same house and residing in the same household, which is the basis for reversing summary judgment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKathryn Sealey held a liability insurance policy with Coronet Insurance Company that covered injuries to others, including her mother-in-law Molly Sea…
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 Insurance Policy Exclusion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The final summary judgment entered in this declaratory decree action is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. We reach this result based on the following, briefly stated legal analysis.
First, the subject liability insurance policy issued to the insured Kathryn Sealey by the insurer Coronet Insurance Company— which otherwise covers the insured for injuries to the plaintiff Molly Sealey as a result of the automobile accident sued upon in this case — contains an exclusion for “bodily injury, property damage or death sustained by any ... member of the family of an insured residing in the same household as the insured.” See Reid v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 352 So. 2d 1172, 1173 (Fla.1977).
Second, the plaintiff Molly Sealey is the mother-in-law of the insured Kathryn Sealey, and was therefore a “member of the family of [the] insured” within the meaning of the above exclusion. See Larsen v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 485 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). Third, the plaintiff Molly Sealey was living in the same house as the insured Kathryn Sealey at the time of the automobile accident sued upon, but there was no showing below that the said plaintiff was “residing in the same household as the insured,” (emphasis supplied) as required by the above exclusion. Indeed, it has been represented to this court that (a) the plaintiff Molly Sealey is entirely self-supporting and is not a member of the insured’s or anyone else’s household, and (b) both the plaintiff and the insured live under the same roof, but in different households in which neither one contributes to the support of the other.
Fourth, the record in this cause raises a genuine issue of material fact as to whether, at the time of the accident sued upon, the plaintiff Molly Sealey was “residing in the same household' as the insured” or was instead residing in her own self-supported household. If the former is true, there would be no insurance coverage in this case as the subject exclusion would be applicable; if, on the other hand, the latter is true, there would be insurance coverage in the case as the subject exclusion would be inapplicable. This being so, it is plain that the summary judgment under review was erroneously entered below and must be reversed for further proceedings. See Larsen v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., supra; Travelers Indemnity Co. v. McClure, 432 So. 2d 158, 159 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); American Motorists Insurance Co. v. Bennett, 415 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); see generally Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sealey v. Coronet Ins. Co., 511 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…rior appeal, the trial court found no insurance coverage for the insured Kathryn Sealey for alleged [*1085] injuries which, it is claimed, she negligently inflicted on the plaintiff Molly Sealey in an automobile accident, Sealey v. Coronet Ins. Co., 487 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Upon remand, the trial court conducted further proceedings in which additional evidence was received relative to the application of the family member exclusion of the subject insurance policy. Based on this additional evidence, t…
Authorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- Reid v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 352 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 1977)
- Larsen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 485 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Am. Motorists Ins. Co. v. Shaughn C. Bennett, 415 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Jones v. State, 432 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)