SHIRLEY ALLEN SIMON, APPELLANT,
v.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, 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.
Shirley Simon appealed a summary judgment denying her uninsured motorist (UMI) insurance benefits after she was injured as a passenger in a vehicle owned by her estranged husband. The court affirmed, holding that the vehicle could not be both insured and uninsured under the same policy, and that interspousal immunity barred her claim even if UMI coverage applied.
The court held that a vehicle cannot be both an insured and uninsured vehicle under the same policy, and therefore the appellant was not entitled to UMI coverage. Additionally, even if UMI coverage applied, the doctrine of interspousal immunity would bar recovery because the insurer stands in the uninsured motorist's shoes and can raise any defense the uninsured motorist could urge.
[1] A vehicle covered by a single insurance policy providing both liability and uninsured motorist coverage cannot be considered uninsured for the purpose of an uninsured mot…
[2] An insurer providing uninsured motorist coverage can assert any defense that the uninsured motorist could have asserted against the claimant.
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“a vehicle cannot be both an insured and uninsured vehicle under the same policy”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that denies UMI coverage when both liability and UMI coverage exist under a single policy.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was injured as a passenger in a vehicle owned and operated by her estranged husband when he lost control of the car. The vehicle was covered…
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 Interspousal Immunity cases and more on FLexlaw
BOARDMAN, EDWARD F., Associate Judge (Retired).
Appellant, Shirley Simon, appeals from an adverse final summary judgment entered in a declaratory judgment action involving uninsured motorist (UMI) coverage. We affirm. Appellant was a passenger in a vehicle owned and operated by her estranged husband. Her husband lost control of the vehicle, and the appellant was injured. At the time of the appellant’s injury, the car was covered by liability and uninsured motorist insurance. Apparently, appellant attempted to collect under the liability section of the policy. She was denied liability coverage because the provisions of the policy excluded coverage for bodily injury to any person related to an insured by marriage and residing in the insured’s household. Subsequently, the appellant made a claim under the same policy for UMI benefits. The appellant’s theory was that the vehicle was uninsured because there was no liability coverage available to her. Allstate denied coverage on the grounds that the doctrine of interspousal immunity precluded her claim.
Appellee, Allstate, commenced an action for declaratory relief to determine whether UMI coverage was precluded by the doctrine of interspousal immunity. Appellant did not file an answer. Allstate moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. In the final summary judgment, the trial court found that appellant was not legally entitled to recover from the husband because of the doctrine of interspousal immunity. The court also found that appellant was not legally entitled to recover UMI benefits because the vehicle was neither uninsured nor underinsured. This appeal timely followed.
Appellant’s first contention on appeal is that the vehicle was uninsured because liability coverage was not available to her. We do not agree. Her reliance on Boynton v. Allstate Insurance Company, 443 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), quashed, 486 So. 2d 552 (Fla.1986), is misplaced. Boynton is distinguishable for the reason that Boynton involved two separate policies. The case at bar involves only one policy which provides both liability and uninsured motorist coverage.1
We find that the decision in Reid v. Allstate Insurance Company, 344 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), affirmed sub nom, Reid v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 352 So. 2d 1172 (Fla.1977), is controlling here. In Reid, the supreme court held that a vehicle cannot be both an insured and uninsured vehicle under the same policy. Reid, 352 So. 2d at 1172. Therefore, the trial court correctly concluded that the appellant was not entitled to UMI coverage.
Even if we had concluded that the rule in Boynton applied here and that the appellant was not precluded from claiming UMI benefits, we would still agree with the trial court’s finding that under these facts she was not legally entitled to recover UMI benefits. The insurer effectively stands in the uninsured motorist’s shoes and can raise any defense that the uninsured motorist could urge. Boynton, 486 So. 2d at 557-58. In the present action, the wife could not obtain a recovery against her husband because of the doctrine of inter-spousal immunity. See Snowten v. U.S. Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 475 So. 2d 1211 (Fla.1985); Raisen v. Raisen, 370 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), affirmed, 379 So. 2d 352 (Fla.1979), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 886, 101 S.Ct. 240, 66 L.Ed.2d 111 (1980). Since the insurer was subrogated to the husband’s substantive defense of interspousal immunity, the trial court was correct in holding that the appellant was not entitled to UMI coverage.
AFFIRMED.
GLICKSTEIN and STONE, JJ., concur. . See Boynton, 486 So. 2d at 555 n. 5.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jernigan v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co., 501 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…ed vehicles, the plaintiffs were not entitled to uninsured motorist benefits because the doctrine of interspousal immunity prevented them from being “legally entitled to recover” from their negligent spouses. See Simon v. Allstate Insurance Company, 496 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). In the present case however the plaintiff was not injured by a family member. Neither did the policy exclude liability coverage for injuries caused by friends of the insured. Thus, declaring the uninsured motorist exclusion inva…
-
Mich. Millers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bourke, 581 So. 2d 1365 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…e.g., Gelaro v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 502 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (UM carrier permitted to assert substantive defense of intra-family immunity, thus precluding recovery under UM policy); Simon v. Allstate Insurance Co., 496 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (UM carrier permitted to assert substantive defense of interspousal immunity). Appellees argue that the case sub judice does not involve an absolute immunity. Appellees can bring an action against the underinsured school board t…
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Alycia R. Baker, 543 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…e driver and injured passenger in this case were not related. They point out that, in many of the cases holding that uninsured motorist coverage was unavailable, the driver and passenger were related. In Reid they were sisters; in Simon v. Allstate, 496 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), they were husband and wife; and so on. In essence, the Deniscos contend that, because Domini was not injured by a family member, the household liability exclusion would not be defeated by allowing uninsured motorist coverage. Th…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Reid v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 352 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 1977)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boynton, 486 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1986)
- Raisen v. Raisen, 379 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 1979)
- Snowten v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co. & Willie Lee Snowten, 475 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 1985)
- Raisen v. Raisen, 449 U.S. 886 (U.S. 1980)
- Whisenhunt v. Georgia, 449 U.S. 886 (U.S. 1980)
- Boynton v. Allstate Ins. Co., 443 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Dawn Marie Reid by her next friend Margaret Henshall v. Allstate Ins. Co., 344 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Raisen v. Raisen, 370 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)