GINA MARCHESE, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS GUARDIAN OF THE MINOR PLAINTIFF, LIKRISH MARCHESE, APPELLANT,
v.
LITITZ MUTUAL 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed that a homeowner's insurance policy does not cover a motor vehicle accident occurring off the insured's resident premises, even when the vehicle is regularly used at that location.
A homeowner's insurance policy does not cover motor vehicle accidents occurring on property not owned by the insured and not part of the insured's resident premises as defined by the policy.
[1] A homeowner's insurance policy excluding motor vehicle accidents occurring off the insured's resident premises does not extend coverage to accidents on non-owned property…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA minor was injured in an accident involving a Honda ATC owned by the insured Brandi Richardson (a gift from her noninsured, nonresident father) on an…
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 Policy Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The final declaratory decree under review is affirmed upon a holding that the accident sued upon is not covered by the subject homeowner’s insurance policy which, without dispute, does not cover accidents involving motor vehicles owned by the insured when the accident occurs off the insured’s “resident premises.” We reach this result because (a) it was conceded below that the Honda ATC involved in the subject accident was owned by the insured Brandi Richardson, there being no dispute that it was a gift from her nonin-sured, nonresident father; (b) the accident sued upon in the instant case occurred on an empty lot, not owned by the insured, across the street from the insured’s home, and, therefore, did not occur on the insured’s “resident premises” as defined by the policy inter alia: “any premises used by you in connection with [insured’s home]”; and (c) a contrary result would mean, as noted by the trial court, that any non-owned empty lot regularly used by an insured to ride her motor vehicle, including lots located many blocks from the insured’s home, would be considered “resident premises” under the policy — clearly an absurd interpretation. See, e.g., James v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., 66 So. 2d 62 (Fla.1953); Fernandez v. United States Fidelity & Guarantee Co., 308 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Shofner, 573 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…licy at [*51] issue excludes coverage for Shelley Shof-ner’s alleged negligent entrustment of the all-terrain vehicle to Amy Hammond for her use away from the insured premises. This holding is consistent with Marchese v. Lititz Mutual Insurance Co., 524 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), in which the third district found that a homeowner’s policy excluded coverage for an accident involving an all-terrain vehicle owned by the insured because the accident occurred off of the insured’s resident premises. Unfortunate…
-
Elliott v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 61 So. 3d 502 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…gularly used by the insured. Id. at 1155. The court found the contrary interpretation, that "any non-owned empty lot regularly used by an insured to ride her motor vehicle” was an "insured premises,” to be "absurd.” Marchese v. Lititz Mut. Ins. Co., 524 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).…
Authorities Cited
- James v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., 66 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 1953)
- Fernandez v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 308 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)