FIDELITY & CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
SUSAN STREICHER, 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.
An automobile insurance policy does not provide underinsured motorist (UM) benefits to the same injured party who has already received the policy's liability limits.
[1] An automobile insurance policy may exclude underinsured motorist coverage for vehicles owned by the insured or a relative.
[2] An insured party is generally not entitled to recover both liability and underinsured motorist benefits under the same insurance policy when the policy does not permit su…
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 intelligencePlaintiff was injured in an accident caused by a permissive user driving her family's car. The family's insurer, Fidelity, paid the liability limits. …
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 Permissive User cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Chief Judge.
The appellee (the plaintiff) was injured in an automobile accident on May 17, 1985. At the time of the accident, she was a passenger in her family’s Datsun automobile, which was being driven by a permissive user, Richard Todd Conger. Conger’s negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident. As a result of the accident, the plaintiff sustained serious personal injuries.
Prior to the accident the appellant (Fidelity) had issued a policy of insurance to the plaintiff's parents which provided liability and uninsured motorist coverage on three family vehicles including the Datsun involved in the accident. The policy provided liability coverage for all permissive users of any insured vehicle. Conger, who had no other insurance, was insured under the policy by virtue of the omnibus insured clause. Fidelity paid the plaintiff its liability policy limits of $100,000.
Fidelity’s policy also included underin-sured motorist (UM) coverage in the amount of $100,000 for each vehicle insured. However, the policy’s definition of uninsured or underinsured motor vehicle excluded any vehicle owned by the insured or a relative.
The plaintiff made a demand for all available UM benefits provided in Fidelity’s policy, asserting that her damages exceeded the amount of the liability coverage which she had received. Fidelity denied the UM claim, and the plaintiff filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that she was entitled to recover both liability and UM benefits under the Fidelity policy. The trial judge found as a matter of law that the plaintiff could avail herself of the UM coverage in the policy and entered final declaratory judgment for the plaintiff. This appeal followed. We reverse.
In State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. McClure, 501 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), this court held that a claimant was not entitled to both liability coverage and underinsured motorist coverage under the same policy, where the policy does not permit that result. We found no conflict between the exclusionary language of the policy and section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1983), which applied to the accident involved in that case. Subsequently, the First District Court of Appeal considered a similar situation in Nicholas v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 503 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 1st DCA Mar. 16, 1987). There the claimant recovered liability benefits under a policy issued by Nationwide and then sought underinsured motorist benefits under the same policy, arguing that pursuant to the 1984 amendment of the uninsured motorist coverage statute, section 627.727, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1984), he was entitled to recover underin-sured motorist benefits in addition to the liability limits. Our sister court disagreed, citing our decision in McClure. The court recognized that McClure involved the 1983 version of the uninsured motorist statute, but concluded that the result should be the same under the 1984 version. We agree.
It is true that the 1984 amendment of the statute changed its language to read that “the [uninsured motorist] coverage described under this section shall be over and above ... the benefits available to an insured ... under any motor vehicle liability insurance coverage ... and such coverage shall cover the difference, if any, between the sum of such benefits and the damages sustained, up to the maximum amount of such coverage provided under this section.” (Emphasis added.) The plaintiff argues that to deny her UM benefits under the Fidelity policy would contravene the public policy expressed in the statute. But we do not feel it was the intent of the legislature to require that an automobile insurance policy provide both liability and underin-sured motorist coverage to the same injured party. The result which the plaintiff seeks in this case would have the effect of doubling the limits of liability under the Fidelity policy. We are confident that Fidelity intended to provide limited liability coverage and to provide underinsured motorist coverage, but not to the same injured party, and that Fidelity charged a premium accordingly. We do not believe that Fidelity should be required to double, in effect, its liability coverage under the circumstances of this case.
Accordingly, we hold that the Fidelity policy in question does not provide underin-sured motorist benefits available to the plaintiff. We reverse the final declaratory judgment for the plaintiff and remand with directions to enter final judgment for Fidelity.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
FRANK and HALL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Travelers Ins. Co. v. Warren, 678 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 1996)…l has previously concluded that neither the 1983 nor the 1984 version of section 627.727 required insurers to stack UM coverage on top of liability coverage under one policy for the benefit of class II insureds. Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Streicher, 506 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 515 So. 2d 231 (Fla.1987); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. McClure, 501 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 511 So. 2d 299 (Fla.), opinion corrected, 512 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). . In passing, we note that…
-
Bulone v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 660 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…definition of “uninsured vehicle.” See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. McClure, 501 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 511 So. 2d 299 (Fla.), op. corrected in, 512 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Fidelity & Casualty Co. of N.Y. v. Streicher, 506 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 515 So. 2d 231 (Fla.1987); Peel v. Allstate Ins. Co., 522 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). See also Nicholas v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 503 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).4 Ms. Bulone does not ask us to recede from…
-
Woodard v. Pa. Nat'l Mut. Ins. Co., 534 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…ry judgment in favor of Pennsylvania National. Although the trial court expressed its disagreement with these decisions, it entered judgment for Pennsylvania National because it found that Nicholas and Fidelity and Cas. Co. of New York v. Streicher, 506 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), established that even under the 1984 amendment to the uninsured motorist statute an injured person is precluded from recovering under both the liability and uninsured motorist provisions of the same policy. Woodard appeals the fi…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. McCLURE, 501 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Hall v. State, 503 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)