AIU INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
DAWN M. REESE, 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.
AIU Insurance Company appeals a trial court's application of Florida negligence law to determine liability in an automobile accident that occurred in Alabama involving a Florida resident passenger. The appellate court holds that Alabama's gross negligence standard for guest statute claims should apply under the most significant relationship test in conflict of laws, reversing and remanding for recalculation of damages.
Alabama law should apply because Alabama bears the most significant relationship to the tort claim under the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws test. The action is primarily one for liability and damages, not merely a contract dispute, and Alabama has a superior interest in having its statutory standards of conduct honored.
[1] The determination of applicable law in tort actions should be based upon the state bearing the most significant relationship to the action, rather than a simple character…
[2] In an automobile accident case involving a passenger in an uninsured vehicle, the state bearing the most significant relationship to the tort claim has a superior interes…
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“based on the most significant relationship test as fashioned in Bishop v. Florida Specialty Paint Co., 389 So.2d 999 (Fla.1980), the gross negligence standard of Alabama's guest statute should have been chosen by the trial court as the applicable law”
Establishes the court's holding on which law should apply and the test used to determine it
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDawn Reese, a Florida resident, was a passenger in an uninsured Alabamian's vehicle that collided with a non-Alabama vehicle in Alabama. Reese sought …
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 Guest Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
HALL, Judge.
Insurer AIU argues that the trial court erred in following Florida’s simple negligence standard to determine liability in an Alabama automobile accident involving Florida resident Dawn Reese, a passenger in an uninsured Alabamian’s vehicle which collided with a non-Alabama vehicle. We accept appellant’s argument and agree that based on the most significant relationship test as fashioned in Bishop v. Florida Specialty Paint Co., 389 So. 2d 999 (Fla.1980), the gross negligence standard of Alabama’s guest statute should have been chosen by the trial court as the applicable law.
We are urged that the determination of applicable law should be based upon a threshold characterization of the action as either sounding in contract or tort.
Appellee apparently prevailed upon the trial court to view the suit for uninsured motorist benefits as a contract action and apply the law of Florida, where the insurance policy was issued, on the authority of Andrews v. Continental Insurance Co., 444 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).
While we generally accept that an action in contract is appropriately resolved according to the laws of the situs where the contract is entered into, Statewide Insurance v. Flaks, 233 So. 2d 400 (Fla.3d DCA 1970), it is appreciably more prevalent as evidenced by Bishop, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Olsen, 406 So. 2d 1109 (Fla.1981), to apply the law of the state which bears the most significant relationship to the action as set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws 145-46. This test was in fact used by the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Andrews in which case the court applied Maine law to calculate interest on proceeds under a policy for uninsured motorist coverage that had been entered into in Maine.
In the instant case the insurance policy provides in pertinent part coverage of legally entitled damages. Alabama clearly bears the most significant relationship to the particular determination of those damages. This is less an action in contract than it is an action for liability and damages applicable to appellant’s right of sub-rogation.
Alabama has the most significant relationship with the tort claim of Dawn M. Reese against her uninsured host driver. It clearly has a superior interest in having its statutory standards of conduct honored, and therefore, Alabama law should prevail.
Eeversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and SANDEELIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Adams v. Brannan, 500 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…ore significant relationship to the particular issue in controversy, should be applied in order to vindicate the policy or interest of that state. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Olsen, 406 So. 2d 1109 (Fla.1981); AIU Ins. Co. v. Reese, 498 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); contra Brooks v. Sturiano, 497 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); see generally Proprietors Ins. Co. v. Valsecchi, 435 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (Schwartz, C.J., dissenting), pet. for review denied, 449 So. 2d 265 (Fla.1984); So…
-
Shapiro v. Associated Int'l Ins. Co., 899 F.2d 1116 (11th Cir. 1990)…, 406 So. 2d 1109, 1110-11 (Fla.1981). . Bates v. Cook, 509 So. 2d 1112, 1114-15 (Fla. 1987). . Hertz Corp. v. Piccolo, 453 So. 2d 12, 14-15 (Fla.1984). . Pennington v. Dye, 456 So. 2d 507, 509-10 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1984). . AIU Ins. Co. v. Reese, 498 So. 2d 966 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1986), rev. denied, 509 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 1987). . We note that insofar as the Gillen court evaluated the significance of Florida’s relationship to the contract of insurance, it was applying the Restatement (Second) to the choice o…
Authorities Cited
- Althea G. Bishop and William J. Bishop, Sr. v. Fla. Specialty Paint Co., 389 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 1980)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Olsen, 406 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 1981)
- State-Wide Ins. Co. v. Flaks, 233 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Andrews v. Cont'l Ins. Co., 444 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)