HOLLER RENTAL COMPANY, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
BARBARA GOERNER MARSH, ET AL., 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 Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment regarding insurance coverage for a leased vehicle. The court held that while the lessor's insurer has primary coverage, it is limited to the first $10,000, not the full extent of coverage as the trial court ruled, and remanded for determination of secondary coverage based on policy provisions.
The lessor's insurer is obligated for primary coverage, but limited to the first $10,000, not the full extent of coverage. The determination of which competing policy provides the next layer of coverage depends on the specific provisions of the policies themselves.
[1] A written lease agreement for a substitute vehicle determines the insurance obligations of the parties.
[2] A rental agreement must satisfy statutory requirements to effectively shift the burden of primary insurance coverage from the lessor to the lessee.
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“Where the owner of a leased vehicle has not properly shifted the burden of primary insurance coverage to the lessee, the owner's primary obligation is for the first $10,-000 of coverage.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard for primary insurance coverage limits when statutory requirements are not met.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHoller Rental Company (lessor) provided a substitute vehicle to a lessee when the original leased vehicle required repairs. The parties executed a sep…
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 Primary Insurance cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, Judge.
The issue raised on this appeal is the correctness of the trial court’s order holding that the insurer for the lessor of a vehicle was responsible for primary coverage on that vehicle to the full extent of its coverage. The vehicle in question was involved in an accident while being operated by the lessee’s employee.
When the leased vehicle was brought back for repairs, the lessor supplied a substitute vehicle and the parties entered into a separate, written agreement covering the substitute vehicle. While driving the substitute vehicle the lessee’s employee was involved in the accident in question, and the trial court correctly held that the written lease agreement for the substitute vehicle determined the obligations of the parties with regard to insurance. We find no error in the court’s holding that the rental agreement did not, in form or content, satisfy the requirements of section 627.7263, Florida Statutes (1981) so as to shift responsibility for primary coverage from the lessor to the lessee. However, the trial court incorrectly held that the lessor’s insurer was primarily obligated to the full extent of its coverage. Where the owner of a leased vehicle has not properly shifted the burden of primary insurance coverage to the lessee, the owner’s primary obligation is for the first $10,-000 of coverage. Allstate Insurance Company v. Fowler, 480 So. 2d 1287 (Fla.1985); Maryland Casualty Company v. Reliance Insurance Company, 478 So. 2d 1068 (Fla.1985).
Which of the two competing policies provides the next layer of coverage depends on the specific provisions of the policies. Allstate; Maryland Casualty Company; Metropolitan Property and Life Insurance Company v. Chicago Insurance Company, 479 So. 2d 114 (Fla.1985).1 The respective insurance policies are not in the record on appeal and the final judgment in this case does not indicate a ruling on this question by the trial court based on the policy language. Therefore, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance herewith and with the cited supreme court cases, which were not available to the trial judge when the judgment appealed from was entered.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
COBB, C.J., and COWART, J., concur. . See also Quinlan Rental & Leasing, Inc. v. Linnet, 484 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Allstate Insurance Company of Canada v. Value Rent-a-Car of Florida, Inc., 463 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Snider v. Cont'l Ins. Co., 519 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…tal is obligated to pay the second level of insurance up to its policy limits. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Fowler, 480 So. 2d 1287 (Fla.1985); Metropolitan Property & Life Ins. Co. v. Chicago Ins. Co., 479 So. 2d 114 (Fla.1985); Holler Rental Co. v. Marsh, 488 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). The trial court’s order requiring Allstate to pay the second layer of coverage and prejudgment interest is reversed. Allstate contends that since Snider was an insured under Continental’s policy, Continental should have been o…
-
Gray v. Major Rent-A-Car, Inc., 563 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…27.7263, the owner’s primary obligation is for the first layer of coverage. Southeastern Fidelity Insurance Company v. Cole, 493 So. 2d 445 (Fla.1986); Allstate Insurance Company v. Fowler, 480 So. 2d 1287 (Fla.1985); Holler Rental Company v. Marsh, 488 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). REVERSED and REMANDED. DAUKSCH and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Fowler, 480 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 1985)
- Metro. Prop. & Life Ins. Co. v. Chicago Ins. Co., 479 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 1985)
- Allstate Ins. Co. OF Canada v. Value Rent-A-Car OF Fla., Inc., 463 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- THE Florida BAR v. Ollinger, 478 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 1985)
- Md. Cas. Co. v. Reliance Ins. Co., 478 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 1985)
- Quinlan Rental & Leasing, Inc. v. Linnel, 484 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)