STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
NANDOR POLGAR AND ARANKA POLGAR, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
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.
State Farm Fire & Casualty Company challenged its obligation to provide uninsured motorist protection to a named insured under a business policy with a hired automobile liability endorsement. The court affirmed that the named insured was entitled to uninsured motorist coverage whenever bodily injury was caused by an uninsured motorist, regardless of whether the vehicle involved was insured under the policy.
The named insured is entitled to uninsured motorist protection insurance whenever bodily injury is inflicted upon him by a negligent uninsured motorist, even though the automobile he occupied was not insured under the automobile liability endorsement. Any ambiguity in the policy regarding partner coverage must be resolved in favor of the insured.
[1] A hired automobile liability endorsement to a business policy may require the offering of uninsured motorist protection when the endorsement provides motor vehicle liabil…
[2] A Class I insured is entitled to uninsured motorist protection under a motor vehicle policy whenever and wherever bodily injury is inflicted upon them by a negligent unin…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The appellant was required to offer uninsured motorist protection because the "hired automobile liability endorsement" to the business policy in question provided motor vehicle liability protection to the named insureds under the terms of the endorsement.”
Establishes the core holding that the hiring endorsement triggered the uninsured motorist requirement
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNandor Polgar was a named insured under a State Farm business policy that included a hired automobile liability endorsement. The policy listed the nam…
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 Class I Insured cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. The appellant was required to offer uninsured motorist protection because the “hired automobile liability endorsement” to the business policy in question provided motor vehicle liability protection to the named insureds under the terms of the endorsement. Ellsworth v. Ins. Co. of North America, 508 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1983).1 Since appellee was a named insured under the policy, he is a Class I insured pursuant to Mullis v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 252 So. 2d 229 (Fla.1971) and is entitled to uninsured motorist protection insurance under the motor vehicle policy whenever and wherever bodily injury is inflicted upon him by a negligent uninsured motorist. This is so even though the automobile appellee occupied at the time of his injuries was not insured under the automobile liability endorsement to this business policy and would have afforded no liability coverage to appellee had he been the negligent party. See Mullis, 252 So. 2d at 233-234. Lewis v. Cincinnati Ins. Company, 503 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Auto Owners Ins. Co. v. Bennett, 466 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1984).
State Farm’s contention that Mr. Polgar, although a named insured, is not insured individually because he was a partner and partners are excluded from coverage is unavailing, even if the business is considered a partnership. The policy lists the named insured as “Nandor or Aranka Polgar DBA Inter Beauty Hair Studio.” Where a policy lists both the partners, and the name of the partnership entity the policy must be read to cover the named partners as individuals as well as the partners as an entity. Ohio Casualty Ins. Co. v. Filce, 304 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974).
At most the inclusion of Mr. Polgar as a named insured in one part of the policy and the potential exclusion of him because he may be a “partner” using his own automobile in another section creates an ambiguity which must be resolved in favor of the insured. See Hartnett v. Southern Ins. Co., 181 So. 2d 524, 528 (Fla.1965); Ohio Casualty Ins. Co., 304 So. 2d 136, n.
2. We also distinguish Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Wright, 543 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) on the ground that in Government Employees Ins. Co. the person claiming UM benefits fell outside the definition of insured under the policy. That is not the case with this policy.
DOWNEY and WARNER, JJ., and WESSEL, JOHN D., Associate Judge, concur. . The policy in question was issued prior to the 1984 amendment of section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Deni Assocs. OF Fla., Inc., 678 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…d. It would seem to me that an insurer could argue successfully the reasonable expectation test to exclude coverage in circumstances where it has heretofore been construed in favor of the insured. See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Polgar, 551 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).…
-
Rigoberto Hurtado and Susana Hurtado v. Fla. Farm Bureau Cas. Co., 557 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…sureds where the named insured on the policy is the corporation); see also, Pac (person who achieves status as insured by driving his employer’s vehicle may not stack employer’s insurance coverage); but see, State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Polgar, 551 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (where partnership policy lists both partners and the partnership as named insured the partners are class one insureds and may not be denied uninsured motorist coverage). In 1976, the Florida legislature adopted section 627.4132…
-
Welker v. World Wide Underwriters Ins. Co., 601 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…motorist coverage. While Heuer noted that even named insureds may be specifically excluded from coverage, this court recently has held that named insureds cannot be excluded from uninsured motorist coverage. See State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Polgar, 551 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). World Wide’s reliance on this court’s decision in Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Wright, 543 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 551 So. 2d 464 (Fla.1989), is also misplaced. Wright can be reconciled with Mullis v.…
Authorities Cited
- Mullis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 252 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 1971)
- Hartnett v. S. Ins. Co., 181 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 1965)
- Ellsworth v. Ins. Co. OF N. Am., 508 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Bennett, 466 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Wright, 543 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Singer v. 3675 Bird Rd., Inc., 543 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Fike, 304 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Lewis v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 503 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)