WEST AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
JOY M. LOVETT, ETC., 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.
West American Insurance Company appealed a trial court judgment awarding uninsured motorist (UM) coverage benefits to the estate of James Aaron Lovett, Jr., who was struck and killed by an uninsured vehicle while walking alongside a highway. The court reversed, holding that Lovett was not "occupying" the covered pickup truck at the time of the accident causing his death, and therefore did not qualify for UM coverage under the policy.
Lovett was not occupying the pickup truck at the time of the accident causing his bodily injuries and death as a matter of law. The court rejected the argument that Lovett's statutory duty to stop and render aid to the injured bicyclist made him an "occupant" of the vehicle for purposes of UM coverage, finding that Lovett was not involved in the hit-and-run accident and thus had no duty to stop.
[1] Uninsured motorist coverage for a person not residing with the policyholder extends only to those "occupying" the insured vehicle.
[2] A person is not "occupying" an insured vehicle when they have exited the vehicle and are walking away from it, even if they are returning to the scene of an accident.
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“Because Mr. Lovett was not a family member residing with the owner of the pickup truck, the UM policy provided Mr. Lovett coverage only if he were a person "occupying" the covered vehicle. On the stipulated facts, as a matter of law, Lovett was not occupying the pickup truck at the time of the accident causing his bodily injuries and death.”
Establishes the core holding that Lovett did not occupy the vehicle and therefore did not qualify for UM coverage.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLovett was operating a pickup truck with UM coverage when he passed a hit-and-run accident scene involving a wrecked bicycle and fatally injured bicyc…
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 Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
James Aaron Lovett, Jr., was operating, with permission of the owner, a pickup truck with uninsured motorist (UM) coverage on a highway when he came upon and passed the scene of a hit-and-run accident involving a wrecked bicycle and a fatally injured bicyclist. The pickup truck ran over bicycle debris, some of which became imbedded in the pickup truck tires. Mr. Lovett stopped the pickup truck off the highway about two hundred feet past the hit-and-run accident scene, got out of the pickup truck, and had walked about one hundred feet on the grass alongside the highway back toward the injured bicyclist when Mr. Lovett was himself struck and fatally injured by an uninsured motor vehicle which had swerved off the road to avoid the bicycle wreckage.
Appellee, Mr. Lovett’s personal representative, brought a law action against appellant insurer claiming Mr. Lovett’s estate and dependents were entitled to UM coverage benefits under the owner’s insurance policy on the pickup truck. On the stipulated facts, the trial court found for the personal representative and against the insurer, which insurer appeals. We reverse.
Because Mr. Lovett was not a family member residing with the owner of the pickup truck,1 the UM policy provided Mr. Lovett coverage only if he were a person “occupying” the covered vehicle. On the stipulated facts, as a matter of law, Lovett was not occupying the pickup truck at the time of the accident causing his bodily injuries and death. See, e.g., Davis v. Fire-mans Fund Insurance Co., 463 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 471 So. 2d 43 (Fla.1985); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Yanes, 447 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Velasquez v. American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co., 387 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Fischer v. Aetna Insurance Co., 65 Mise. 2d 191, 317 N.Y.S.2d 669, affirmed, 37 A.D.2d 917, 325 N.Y.S.2d 1012 (1971).
The personal representative urges that Mr. Lovett was obligated by statute to stop and render aid to the injured bicyclist, and that this court therefore should find Lovett to have been occupying the pickup truck while he walked back towards the bicyclist in discharge of his duty. See §§ 316.027 and 316.062(1), Fla.Stat. We reject this argument. The fact some of the bicycle debris became imbedded in the pickup truck tires when Lovett passed the scene of the hit-and-run bicycle accident several minutes after that accident had occurred does not make Lovett “the driver of any vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury or death of any person ...” within the meaning of sections 316.027 and 316.-062(1). The hit-and-run accident resulting in the injury or death of the bicyclist was completed before Mr. Lovett came upon the hit-and-run accident scene. Therefore, Lo-vett was not obligated to stop and render aid to the injured bicyclist in the first place.
The judgment for the personal representative is reversed and judgment is hereby entered in favor of the appellant insurer.2
REVERSED.
DAUKSCH and ORFINGER, JJ., concur. . The owner of the pickup truck was Mr. Lo-vett’s mother. . As it is not presented by this appeal, this opinion is necessarily without prejudice to any claim Mr. Lovett’s survivors may have against the UM insurer under the Wrongful Death Statute and this court’s decision in Webster v. Valiant Insurance Co., 512 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Above ALL Roofing, LLC, 924 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…the doctrine of reasonable expectations.” Deni Assocs. of Fla., 711 So. 2d at 1140. And, we are aware of no Florida decision that would expand UM coverage as broadly as urged by the Loskots and Above All Roofing. But see West Am. Ins. Co. v. Lovett, 519 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (considering claimant’s argument for UM benefits based on compliance with sections 316.027 and 316.062(1), where uninsured motorist struck and killed claimant who exited car to help injured bicyclist; holding no coverage because…
-
Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Hayward, 858 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…e changing a tire on a disabled vehicle while away from the tow truck. The policy language limiting uninsured motorist coverage to “anyone ... occupying a covered auto” was upheld. Similarly, this court in West American Insurance Company v. Lovett, 519 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), review denied, 525 So. 2d 879 (Fla.1988), approved a coverage provision limiting UM coverage to a person occupying the covered vehicle for a Class II insured relying on Yanes and Velasquez. Mr. Lovett was the permissive operator…
-
McNAMARA v. Seibert, 537 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…rson” to suffer “bodily injury” giving rise to the damage claim, is void and contrary to Florida public policy. Id. at 973. See also, U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty v. Fitzgerald, 521 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); West American Insurance Co. v. Lovett, 519 So. 2d 39, 40 n. 2 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Rachel was an insured within the meaning of the policy, and has uninsured/under-insured motorist coverage as a “survivor” for the wrongful death of her father caused by the wrongful acts of an underin-sured motorist.…
Authorities Cited
- Velasquez v. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. & Tropical Chevrolet, 387 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Yanes, 447 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Davis v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 463 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Webster v. Valiant Ins. Co., 512 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)