ELPIDA PEEL, AS THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MAKIS HENRY PEEL, APPELLANT,
v.
ALLSTATE 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.
An automobile insurance policy does not require UM coverage to be excess over liability coverage in the same policy, even after the 1984 amendment to section 627.727.
The appellant's decedent died in a car accident. The appellee insurance company paid the policy's liability limits but refused to pay underinsured mot…
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 Liability Insurance cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Acting Chief Judge.
The appellant challenges the trial court’s entry of a final summary judgment in favor of the appellee.
On October 18, 1985, the appellant’s decedent, Makis Henry Peel, while a passenger in an automobile, died as a result of the driver’s negligence. Appellee Allstate Insurance Company had issued a policy providing both liability and underinsured motorist (UM) coverage for the vehicle. Allstate paid the appellant the limit of its liability coverage but refused to pay the UM benefits.
The appellant argued in the trial court and contends here that section 627.727, Florida Statutes (Supp.1984), made the UM coverage excess over and above the liability coverage in the same policy.
In Fidelity & Casualty Co. of N.Y. v. Streicher, 506 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 2d DCA), re view denied, 515 So. 2d 231 (Fla.1987), we rejected the same contention in a case involving a passenger injured in an auto accident on May 17, 1985. See also State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. McClure, 501 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 511 So. 2d 299 (Fla.1987).
As Chief Judge Danahy observed in Streicher, despite the 1984 amendment of section 627.727, it was not the intent of the legislature to require that an automobile insurance policy provide both liability and UM coverage to the same injured party. The trial judge in this case was correct in entering final summary judgment for the appellee.
Affirmed.
RYDER and FRANK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bulone v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 660 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…(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 those cases, but rather argues that the legislature intended to increase the coverage available fo…
-
Armstrong v. Allstate Ins. Co., 712 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…injuries arising out of a single-car accident involving only one tortfeasor. See Travelers Ins. Co. v. Warren, 678 So. 2d 324 (Fla.1996). See also Bulone v. United Services Auto. Ass’n., 660 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Peel v. Allstate Ins. Co., 522 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Fidelity & Cas. Co. v. Streicher, 506 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Nicholas v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 503 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). The reason for such a restriction is that it was never the intention of the legisl…
Authorities Cited
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. McCLURE, 501 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Fid. & Cas. Co. OF NEW York v. Streicher, 506 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)