DAIRYLAND INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
PAULINE KRIZ, 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.
Dairyland Insurance Company appeals an award of uninsured motorist benefits to the mother of the named insured. The court reverses, holding that because the policy expressly limited liability coverage to resident relatives who do not own a car, and the mother owned a car, she was not entitled to uninsured motorist coverage despite being covered under the policy's PIP provision.
The court held that Kriz was not entitled to uninsured motorist benefits because the policy's plain language expressly limited liability coverage to resident relatives who do not own a car, and since she owned a car, she was not an insured under the policy's definition. The fact that she was covered under the PIP provision was irrelevant to her entitlement to uninsured motorist benefits.
[1] An insurance policy may exclude liability and uninsured motorist coverage for a resident relative of the named insured if that relative owns a car.
[2] Uninsured motorist coverage is generally contingent upon the availability of basic liability coverage under the same 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“You, your, yourself also means a member of the family who is a resident of the household and who doesn't own a car.”
The express policy language that limited liability coverage to resident family members who do not own a car, which is the key basis for the reversal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePauline Kriz, the mother of the named insured under a Dairyland Insurance policy, resided with her son. She was injured as a passenger in a third pers…
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 Liability Insurance cases and more on FLexlaw
BARFIELD, Judge.
Dairyland Insurance Company (Dairy-land) appeals an award of uninsured motorist benefits to the mother of the named insured under a policy which by its terms extends neither liability nor uninsured motorist coverage to a resident relative of the named insured who owns a car. We reverse.
Appellee, who resided with her son (the named insured under the Dairyland policy) was injured in an automobile accident while a passenger in a car operated by a third person. At the time of the accident, appel-lee owned an automobile (not involved in this accident) which was not insured under the Dairyland policy issued to her son.
The “plain talk” policy in question provided, among other things, liability and uninsured motorist coverage, defining the insured as:
You, your, yourself means the person named on the declarations page and that person’s husband or wife if a resident of the same household.
You, your, yourself also means a member of the family who is a resident of the household and who doesn’t own a car. By amendatory endorsement, the policy provided personal injury protection (PIP) coverage to the named insured or any dependent relative involved in a motor vehicle accident. The parties agree that appellee was covered under the latter provision. They disagree as to whether appellee was covered under the uninsured motorist provision.
The fundamental question in this type of case is whether the resident relative is enti- tied to basic liability coverage. If so, he is entitled to the uninsured motorist coverage; if not, he is not an “insured” within the definition of the policy, and is therefore not entitled to uninsured motorist benefits. Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Queen, 468 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Auto Owners-Insurance Company v. Bennett, 466 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
In the instant case, the plain language of the insurance policy expressly extends liability coverage only to those resident relatives who do not own a car. The policy therefore does not provide liability coverage or uninsured motorist coverage to appellee, who owns a car. The court rejected a similar claim for uninsured motorist benefits in France v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 380 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
Because appellee was not provided liability coverage under the Dairyland policy, Dairyland was not required to, and did not, provide uninsured motorist coverage to her under its policy with her son. The fact that she was covered under the PIP provision is irrelevant to the issue of her entitlement to uninsured motorist benefits. Salladeii v. Colonial Insurance Company of California, 465 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). The judgment awarding uninsured motorist benefits is REVERSED.
ERVIN and WIGGINTON, JJ., 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)…by the trial court herein, yet the decision in Bolin, while mentioning Incar-dona, denied coverage obviously because the policy in Bolin did not provide basic liability coverage as did the Incardona policy. See also Dairyland Insurance Co. v. Kriz, 495 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), rev. denied, 504 So. 2d 767 (Fla.1987); France v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 380 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). In conclusion, we recognize and honor the long-standing rule set out in Mullís that UM coverage must be provide…
-
Lewis v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 503 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…ates of Mullis v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Company, 252 So. 2d 229 (Fla.1971) the insurance company could not exclude those family members from uninsured motorist coverage as the policy attempted to do. In Dairyland Insurance Company v. Kriz, 495 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) and in France v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 380 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) the insurance policies excluded from the definition of insured (for liability and uninsured motorist coverage) any family member who owned a ca…
-
Dairyland Ins. Co. v. Kriz, 515 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…urt’s order. In conjunction with this payment appellant filed a satisfaction of judgment. The circuit court’s original order establishing coverage under the insurance policy was subsequently reversed on appeal. See Dairyland Insurance Co. v. Kriz, 495 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Appellant then filed various motions in the circuit court which included a request for the refund of the attorney’s fee which it had paid. The court denied appellant’s request for the refund, citing Morris North American, Inc. v…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- France v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 380 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- 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)
- Sallade v. Colonial Ins. Co. of Cal., 465 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)