DEBRA S. HARTLAND, 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.
Debra Hartland sought uninsured motorist benefits from Allstate Insurance for injuries sustained as a passenger in her own vehicle driven by an uninsured friend. The court affirmed the denial of benefits, holding that family exclusion provisions and policy language excluding uninsured automobiles from coverage precluded recovery.
Hartland is not entitled to uninsured motorist benefits. The family exclusion provision in the policy, which excluded liability for injury to family members residing with the insureds, precludes coverage. Additionally, the policy provision stating that an uninsured automobile cannot be defined as an insured automobile under the liability portion of the policy bars recovery.
[1] Uninsured motorist benefits may be precluded by a "family exclusion" provision in an insurance policy that excludes liability for injury to a family member residing with…
[2] An uninsured automobile cannot be a vehicle defined as an insured automobile under the liability portion of an insurance policy for the purposes of uninsured motorist cov…
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“The exclusions from coverage relied upon by the appellee have been consistently upheld, and they have been applied to preclude coverage under circumstances very similar to those presented here.”
Establishes that the court's holding is consistent with established Florida precedent on insurance exclusions.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHartland was injured as a passenger in her own 1981 Plymouth automobile while it was being driven by an uninsured friend with her permission. Hartland…
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 Provision cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant was injured in an automobile accident while riding as a passenger in her own automobile. At the time of the accident, a friend of the appellant was driving the automobile with her permission. The appellant, who was a resident of her parents’ household, sued the appellee, Allstate Insurance Company, under the uninsured motorist provisions of a policy of insurance issued by the appellee to her parents. The single Allstate policy desig nated both the appellant’s 1981 Plymouth automobile and her parents’ 1981 Toyota automobile as insured vehicles. In her complaint, the appellant asserted that she was entitled to recover under the uninsured motorist provisions of the policy because she had been injured due to the negligence of her friend, who was uninsured. The appellee successfully defended the claim on two bases.
First, the appellee argued that an award of uninsured motorist benefits under these circumstances would effectively defeat a “family exclusion” provision in the policy which excluded liability for injury to any family member residing with the insureds.
Secondly, the appellee relied upon a policy provision which stated that an uninsured automobile could not be a vehicle defined as an insured automobile under the liability portion of the policy.
On appeal, the appellant argues that she is entitled to uninsured motorist benefits under the policy coverage provided for her automobile and for her parents’ automobile.
We disagree, and affirm.
The exclusions from coverage relied upon by the appellee have been consistently upheld, and they have been applied to preclude coverage under circumstances very similar to those presented here. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Dascoli, 497 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1986); Reid v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 352 So. 2d 1172 (Fla.1977); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Baker, 543 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), rev. denied, 554 So. 2d 1167 (Fla.1989); Amica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wells, 507 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); and Harrison v. Metro. Property & Liab. Ins. Co., 475 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s determination that the appellant’s injuries were not covered under the uninsured motorist provisions of the policy.
ERVIN, ALLEN and WOLF, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brixius v. Allstate Ins. Co., 589 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 1991)…[*238] gan court recognized the viability of Reid in a situation where allowing recovery of uninsured motorist benefits would defeat a valid liability exclusion contained in the same policy. 501 So. 2d at 751. See also Hartland v. Allstate Ins. Co., 575 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Accordingly, we approve the decision of the district court below and disapprove the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Jemigan to the extent it conflicts with this opinion. It is so ordered. SHAW, C.J., and OVE…
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Croakman, 591 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…cle under the policy, is “uninsured” under the terms of the policy’s UM provision. Brixius v. Allstate Insurance Co., 589 So. 2d 236 (Fla.1991); Reid v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 352 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 1977); Hartland v. Allstate Insurance Co., 575 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). We must also reverse the award of ap-pellees’ attorneys’ fees which was dependent upon a judgment in their favor. Section 627.428(1), Fla.Stat. (1989). Accordingly, the trial court’s final declaratory judgment and order granti…
-
Hartland v. Allstate Ins. Co., 592 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 1992)…PER CURIAM. We have for review Hartland v. Allstate Insurance Co., 575 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), because of conflict with Jernigan v. Progressive American Insurance Co., 501 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 513 So. 2d 1062 (Fla.1987). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Reid v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 352 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 1977)
- Harrison v. Metro. Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co., 475 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- AMICA Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sylvan A. Wells, 507 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Dascoli, 497 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1986)
- Reno v. Person, 497 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1986)
- Singletary v. State, 543 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Alycia R. Baker, 543 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)