ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
DANIEL PATRICK DASCOLI, RESPONDENT
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 Supreme Court held that a family exclusion clause in an uninsured motorist provision does not render a vehicle uninsured when the injured party is a passenger in a vehicle driven by a family member, reversing the district court's decision allowing recovery.
A family exclusion clause in an uninsured motorist provision does not make a vehicle uninsured for purposes of allowing recovery by a passenger injured by a family member's negligence.
[1] A family exclusion clause in an uninsured motorist provision does not render a vehicle uninsured, and therefore does not permit recovery by a passenger injured by a famil…
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 intelligenceDascoli was injured while riding as a passenger in a van negligently driven by his wife; the van was covered by an Allstate liability insurance policy…
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 Provision cases and more on FLexlaw
OVERTON, Justice.
This is a petition to review Allstate Insurance Co. v. Dascoli, 477 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), in which the district court relies on Boynton v. Allstate Insurance Co., 443 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), to allow recovery by Dascoli under the uninsured motorist provisions of an insurance policy. Dascoli was injured while riding as a passenger in a van negligently driven by his wife. At the time of the accident, the van was covered by an Allstate liability insurance policy. The district court held that the uninsured motorist provision was applicable because the family exclusion provision of the policy made Dascoli’s van uninsured.
We recently quashed, in part, the authority upon which the district court relies. See Allstate Insurance Co. v. Boynton, 486 So. 2d 552 (Fla.1986). We find conflict with Harrison v. Metropolitan Property and Liability Insurance Co., 475 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). In Harrison, as in this case, the plaintiff was injured while riding as a passenger in a vehicle driven by his wife. We hold that the reasoning expressed in Harrison is applicable and should control the disposition of this case.
We quash the decision of the district court and direct that the cause be remanded to the trial court for entry of a judgment consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
MCDONALD, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., concur. EHRLICH, J., concurs in result only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brixius v. Allstate Ins. Co., 589 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 1991)…ld that a vehicle cannot be both an insured and uninsured vehicle under the same policy. The present case is distinguishable because it involves separate policies. Reid is inapplicable. 486 So. 2d at 555 n. 5. See also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Dascoli, 497 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1986). We agree with the court below that this case is controlled by Reid. It should be noted that since our decision in Reid the legislature has not amended section 627.-727, Florida Statutes (1987), to require uninsured motorist benefits be…
-
Jernigan v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co., 501 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…declare them invalid as contrary to the public policy expressed in section 627.727, Florida Statutes. We believe that this conclusion is consistent with the holdings of Reid and its more recent reaffirmance in Allstate Insurance Company v. Dascoli, 497 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1986).3 In both Reid and Dascoli, the plaintiffs were attempting to recover under an uninsured motorist coverage held by their spouses, for injuries sustained while riding in a family vehicle. Valid exclusions in the liability policies prevente…
-
Kitteridge S. Fitzgibbon v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., 583 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 1991)…d in the same accident. She claimed benefits under the third-party tort or uninsured provisions of the insurance policy issued to the Fitzgib-bons by Government Employees. The only difference between this case and Allstate Insurance Co. v. Dascoli, 497 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1986), and Reid v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 352 So. 2d 1172 (Fla.1977), is the death of the husband-driver. None of the insurance policies involved in any of these cases extended coverage for bodily injury to any member of an insured’s h…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boynton, 486 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1986)
- Boynton v. Allstate Ins. Co., 443 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Harrison v. Metro. Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co., 475 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Dascoli, 477 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)