JOSEPH J. INCARDONA, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MARGARET R. INCARDONA, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
AUTO-OWNERS 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.
In this appeal of an insurance coverage dispute, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment and held that an insured's deceased daughter was entitled to uninsured motorist protection under the father's automobile insurance policy despite the daughter owning and driving her own separately insured vehicle at the time of the fatal accident.
Margaret was entitled to uninsured motorist coverage under her father's policy. The policy's liability coverage clause covering relatives living in the household provided Margaret basic liability coverage, and Florida law mandates uninsured motorist coverage for all persons insured under a policy for basic liability coverage, which could not be excluded by policy terms.
[1] Uninsured motorist coverage is mandated by statute for all persons insured under a policy for basic liability coverage.
[2] A relative residing with the named insured is entitled to uninsured motorist coverage under the named insured's policy, even if the relative owns a separately insured veh…
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“We will pay damages for bodily injury and damage to tangible property for which you become legally responsible and which involve your automobile. We will pay such damages on your behalf, on behalf of any relative who lives with you or on behalf of any person using your automobile with your permission.”
The policy's liability coverage clause that the court determined provided Margaret basic coverage as a resident relative, triggering the statutory requirement for uninsured motorist coverage.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMargaret Incardona, a resident of her father's household, was killed in an automobile accident caused solely by the negligence of an uninsured third-p…
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 Policy Coverage cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Judge.
This appeal presents the question of whether appellant’s deceased daughter was entitled to uninsured motorist protection under appellant’s automobile insurance policy which was issued by appellee. The court below ruled in favor of appellee and held that coverage did not exist. We reverse.
Appellant’s daughter, Margaret Incardo-na, was killed in an automobile accident that was caused solely by the negligence of an uninsured third-party driver. At the time of the accident, Margaret was driving her own automobile which was separately insured under another automobile insurance policy issued by appellee. The accident did not involve any vehicles insured under appellant’s policy. Margaret was a resident of appellant’s household at the time of the accident.
Both parties moved for summary judgment. The facts are not in dispute. The sole question involved is whether Margaret was precluded from uninsured motorist coverage under appellant’s policy since she owned a separately insured vehicle which she was driving at the time of the accident. We conclude that this case is directly on point with Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Bennett, 466 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), and is indistinguishable from Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Queen, 468 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), both of which rely upon Mullis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 252 So. 2d 229 (Fla.1971). The Liability Coverage for Bodily Injury and Property Damage clause in the policy in issue provides:
We will pay damages for bodily injury and damage to tangible property for which you become legally responsible and which involve your automobile. We will pay such damages on your behalf, on behalf of any relative who lives with you or on behalf of any person using your automobile with your permission. And we will pay such damages on behalf of any other person who is legally responsible for the use of your automobile when used by or with your permission. (Emphasis supplied.)
We held in regard to identical language in Bennett that a son who owned a separately insured automobile and lived with his father was entitled to uninsured motorist coverage under the father’s policy. We reached that conclusion because the emphasized language above afforded the son basic liability coverage under the father’s policy regardless of the fact that other provisions, including the uninsured motorist coverage clause, excluded the son because he owned an automobile. We recognized that Mullís construed what is now section 627.-727, Florida Statutes (1985), to mandate uninsured motorist coverage for all persons who are insured under a policy for basic liability coverage. Therefore, inasmuch as Margaret Incardona was insured as a relative residing with appellant under the basic liability coverage clause quoted above, uninsured motorist coverage was a statutory requirement which could not be excluded by the policy terms.
Reversed and remanded.
DANAHY, C.J., and HALL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Wright, 543 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…red auto owned by an insured or a relative is not covered.” The trial judge granted summary judgment in favor of Wright, finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact. Relying upon the reasoning in Incardona v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co., 494 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), rev. denied, 503 So. 2d 326 (Fla.1987), the trial court found, as a matter of law, that Hull’s UM coverage extended to Wright for this accident because she was a resident in her father’s home. GEICO contends on appeal that the t…
-
James Bolin and wife v. Mass. BAY Ins. Co., 518 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…ge section of the policy and, therefore, as a matter of law, his exclusion from uninsured motorists coverage is invalid. Mullis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 252 So. 2d 229 (Fla.1971); Incardona v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company, 494 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1985). Massachusetts Bay concedes that it cannot exclude persons covered under the basic liability provisions of the policy from uninsured motorists coverage. However, it maintains that Mr. Boli…
-
DeLuna v. Valiant Ins., 792 F. Supp. 790 (M.D. Fla. 1992)…admitting that “abstract fairness would require a conclusion different from that which we reach.” Id. at 245. The court in Lewis followed the precedent in Bennett. Id. at 910. In Incardona v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company 494 So.2d 513 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), uninsured motorist coverage was extended to a resident family member who was injured while driving her own vehicle which was separately insured. Incardona can be distinguished because there was no indication in the case hol…
Authorities Cited
- Mullis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 252 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 1971)
- Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Bennett, 466 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Winona Kay Kemp Queen, 468 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)