MOLLY SEALEY, APPELLANT,
v.
CORONET INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
This case involves a second appeal concerning insurance coverage for injuries sustained by Molly Sealey. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the "family member exclusion" in the insurance policy applied because the injured party and the insured lived in a single, joint household.
Yes, the "family member exclusion" applies because the evidence clearly demonstrates that the injured party and the insured lived in a single, joint household on the date of the accident.
[1] A family member exclusion in an insurance policy is applicable when the claimant and the insured live in a single, joint household.
[2] Evidence of mutual contribution to household expenses supports a finding of a single, joint household for purposes of an insurance policy exclusion.
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“This time we affirm the final summary judgment under review because, simply stated, the evidence is now clear from this record that the plaintiff Molly Sealey — who is the mother-in-law and, therefore, a family member of the insured Kathryn Sealey— lived in a single, joint household, which included the insured Kathryn Sealey, on the date of the subject automobile accident.”
Establishes the court's primary reason for affirming the summary judgment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMolly Sealey, the mother-in-law of the insured Kathryn Sealey, was injured in an automobile accident. The insurance policy contained a "family member …
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 Landlord-Tenant Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is the second appeal in this case following our reversal of a final summary judgment in a declaratory decree action entered in favor of the defendant Coronet Insurance Company. In the prior appeal, the trial court found no insurance coverage for the insured Kathryn Sealey for alleged injuries which, it is claimed, she negligently inflicted on the plaintiff Molly Sealey in an automobile accident, Sealey v. Coronet Ins. Co., 487 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).
Upon remand, the trial court conducted further proceedings in which additional evidence was received relative to the application of the family member exclusion of the subject insurance policy. Based on this additional evidence, the trial court again entered a final summary judgment in favor of the defendant Coronet Insurance finding no insurance coverage in the cause based on the family member exclusion.
This time we affirm the final summary judgment under review because, simply stated, the evidence is now clear from this record that the plaintiff Molly Sealey — who is the mother-in-law and, therefore, a family member of the insured Kathryn Sealey— lived in a single, joint household, which included the insured Kathryn Sealey, on the date of the subject automobile accident. She did not, as urged in the first appeal, live in her own self-contained, self-supported household.
The record demonstrates, without material dispute, that both parties contributed to the support of one another in a single joint household, wherein (a) Kathryn Sealey contributed $100-$150 a month for household expenses, and (b) Molly Sealey paid the balance of such joint expenses. There was no formal or informal rental arrangement established between the parties so as to create, in essence, a landlord-tenant relationship. It, therefore, cannot be said, as urged, that two self-contained, self-supporting households existed under one roof in this case. This being so, the family member exclusion of the subject insurance policy was fully applicable. See General Guar. Ins. Co. v. Broxsie, 239 So. 2d 595, 597 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Gen. Guar. Ins. Co. v. Gertrude Delores Broxsie, 239 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
- Sealey v. Coronet Ins. Co., 487 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)