LEONARD BENNETT, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF CHRISTOPHER BENNETT, A DECEASED MINOR CHILD, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE SURVIVING PARENTS, AND, AS NATURAL GUARDIAN OF CHAD BENNETT, FOR THE BENEFIT OF CHAD BENNETT, APPELLANT,
v.
GRANITE STATE 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.
Bennett sought declaratory relief to construe his commercial automobile liability insurance policy issued by Granite State Insurance Company, claiming uninsured motorist benefits for an accident in Florida that killed his son Christopher and injured his son Chad. The trial court granted summary judgment for Granite State, applying Georgia law (where the policy was issued and the insured was located) rather than Florida law, and found that Georgia law required Bennett to obtain a judgment against the tortfeasor before claiming uninsured motorist benefits, which he had failed to do.
Georgia law governs the policy under the doctrine of lex loci contractus because the contract was executed in Georgia. Under Georgia law, Bennett is barred from recovering uninsured motorist benefits because he failed to obtain a judgment against the uninsured tortfeasor as a condition precedent to suit against the insurance carrier.
[1] A contract of insurance is governed by the law of the jurisdiction where the contract was executed.
[2] Under Georgia law, obtaining a judgment against the tortfeasor is a condition precedent to seeking uninsured motorist benefits from the insurance carrier.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“law of jurisdiction where contract executed governs rights and liabilities of parties on issue of insurance coverage”
Establishes the doctrine of lex loci contractus that controls the choice of law analysis in insurance contract disputes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGranite State issued a commercial automobile liability insurance policy to Bennett, a Georgia resident, in Georgia. The insured vehicles were principa…
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 Lex Loci Contractus cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Bennett brought an action for declaratory relief, seeking a construction of the terms of his commercial automobile liability insurance policy issued by Granite State Insurance Company. On motion for final summary judgment filed by Granite State, the trial court concluded that: 2. It is uncontroverted the policy of automobile insurance was issued and delivered by Defendant in Georgia to Plaintiff, a Georgia resident whose principal place of business is located in Georgia. The vehicles described by the insurance policy as insured vehicles were principally garaged in Georgia, registered in Georgia and operated by persons licensed in the State of Georgia. Plaintiff applied for the subject policy in the State of Georgia through an insurance agent licensed in the State of Georgia. Premiums were paid to the insurance agent in Georgia.
3. Plaintiff’s claim of uninsured motorist benefits stems from an automobile accident in Florida which resulted in the death of CHRISTOPHER BENNETT and injuries to CHAD BENNETT, both sons of LEONARD BENNETT. It is uncontroverted Plaintiff, individually and in his representative capacities settled all claims arising from the subject automobile accidents against the tort feasors who allegedly caused the accident and executed releases discharging the tort feasors from further liability. It is further uncontroverted that Plaintiff did not obtain judgments against the tort fea-sors prior to seeking uninsured motorist benefits from Defendant pursuant to the policy of insurance.
The trial court determined as a matter of law that the action was controlled by Georgia law. H.S. Equities, Inc. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 334 So. 2d 573 (Fla.1976); Aetna Casualty & Sur. Co. v. Diamond, 472 So. 2d 1312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). The trial court further found that Georgia law barred Bennett’s claims against Granite State because Bennett had failed to obtain judgments against the tortfeasors before seeking uninsured motorist benefits. See Smith v. Phillips, 172 Ga.App. 459, 323 S.E. 2d 669 (1984) (Uninsured Motorist Act requires, as condition precedent to suit against carrier, that insured recover judgment against uninsured motorist); Allstate Ins. Co. v. McCall, 166 Ga.App. 833, 305 S.E. 2d 413 (1983) (same), aff'd, 251 Ga. 869, 310 S.E. 2d 513 (1984).
Although it did not have the benefit of the Florida supreme court’s latest pronouncement concerning the doctrine of lex loci contractus, see Sturiano v. Brooks, 523 So. 2d 1126 (Fla.1988) (law of jurisdiction where contract executed governs rights and liabilities of parties on issue of insurance coverage), the trial court correctly applied the doctrine to the present action. The trial court’s order on final summary judgment in favor of Granite State is affirmed in all respects.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Andras Serfozo v. THE Travelers Indem. Co., Inc., 788 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…tort was dispositive. Appellant argues that North Carolina law should apply because Travelers is regionally headquartered in North Carolina, and the policy was signed by' Travelers in North Carolina. We disagree. Bennett v. Granite State Ins. Co., 526 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)(Georgia law applicable where insurance policy was delivered in Georgia to a Georgia resident whose principle place of business was located in Georgia). We agree with the trial court’s conclusion that the Georgia statute of limit…
Authorities Cited
- Sturiano v. Martin Brooks Ad Litem of the Estate of Vito Sturiano, 523 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 1988)
- H. S. Equities, Inc. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 334 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 1976)
- AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Diamond, 472 So. 2d 1312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)