ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
JILL BARBA, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed summary judgment for uninsured motorist claimant, holding that UM coverage is limited third-party coverage where the insurer stands in the tortfeasor's shoes and can assert any defense the tortfeasor could raise.
Uninsured motorist (UM) coverage is limited third-party coverage, not first-party coverage, and the insurer can assert any defense the uninsured tortfeasor could assert.
[1] Uninsured motorist coverage is limited third-party coverage, not first-party coverage, and the insurer may assert any defense that the uninsured tortfeasor could assert,…
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 intelligence“The carrier effectually stands in the uninsured motorist's shoes and can raise and assert any defense that the uninsured motorist could urge.”
Explaining the nature of UM coverage and the insurer's rights under such policies.
Allstate Insurance Company appealed a summary judgment in favor of Jill Barba in an uninsured motorist coverage dispute.…
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 Uninsured Motorist Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The supreme court in Allstate Insurance Company v. Boynton, 486 So. 2d 552 (Fla.1986) held:
The UM coverage, in purpose and effect, provides a limited form of insurance coverage up to the applicable policy limits for the uninsured motorist. The carrier effectually stands in the uninsured motorist’s shoes and can raise and assert any defense that the uninsured motorist could urge. In other words, UM coverage is a limited form of third party coverage inuring to the limited benefit of the tortfeasor to provide a source of financial responsibility if the policyholder is entitled under the law to recover from the tortfeasor. It is not first party coverage even though the policyholder pays for it. In first party coverage, such as medical, collision or theft insurance, fault is not an element. The insurance carrier pays even though the policyholder is totally at fault. With UM coverage, the carrier pays only if the tortfeasor would have to pay, if the claim were made directly against the tortfeasor. Id. at 557.
Accordingly, we reverse the final summary judgment in favor of appellee and remand this case for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
GLICKSTEIN and DELL, JJ„ and GOLDMAN, MURRAY, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Southtrust Bank v. PARTSBASE.COM, Inc., 875 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…ent order or right to recover money paid under a mistake.” [e.s.] UCC § 4-407 cmt. 5 (2000); cf. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boynton, 486 So. 2d 552 (Fla.1986); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Candreva, 497 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Barba, 487 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Travelers Indem. Co. v. Integon Gen. Ins. Co., 748 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (all holding that the insurance carrier effectually stands in the uninsured motorist’s shoes and can raise and assert any defense that the uninsur…
Authorities Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boynton, 486 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1986)