ANDREI LAMPKIN, APPELLANT,
v.
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, ETC., 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 employee not listed as a named insured on a corporate automobile policy is not entitled to uninsured motorist coverage when injured while not occupying the covered vehicle.
[1] An employee listed as an operator of a corporate vehicle is not a named insured under an automobile insurance policy issued to the corporation.
[2] The term "occupying" in an automobile insurance policy, for purposes of coverage, requires physical presence in, upon, or the act of entering or exiting the vehicle.
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 intelligenceAn employee, provided a demonstrator vehicle by his employer, was injured by an underinsured motorist while the vehicle was parked. The employee was n…
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 Named Insured cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Andrei Lampkin appeals a summary final judgment determining that he is not entitled to uninsured motorist coverage. We affirm.
Lampkin was employed as an automobile salesman by J.M. Pontiac, Inc. He was provided a demonstrator vehicle owned by the dealership for use as his personal vehicle. The vehicle was covered by an automobile insurance policy issued by appellee National Union Fire Insurance Company to J.M. Pontiac, Inc. and several other named insureds. Lampkin was not a named insured.
While jogging near his home, Lampkin was struck by an underinsured motor vehicle and sustained personal injuries. At the time of the accident the demonstrator vehicle was parked at Lampkin’s home. National Union denied coverage under its policy and Lampkin brought suit for declaratory judgment, seeking underinsured motorist benefits.
We conclude that the summary judgment in favor of National Union was correctly entered. In Pearcy v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 429 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 438 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 1983), the court held that where an unin--sured motorist policy is issued to a corporation, the listing of an employee as the operator of the corporation’s vehicle does not make that employee a named insured. Id. at 1298-99. That being so, Lampkin was within the portion of the policy providing coverage to “[ajnyone else occupying a covered auto.... ” For purposes of the policy, “occupying” was defined as “in, upon, getting in, on, out, or off.” As Lampkin was admittedly not occupying the covered auto, or getting in or out of the covered auto, at the time of the accident, coverage was correctly denied. Id. at 1299.
Lampkin asserts that to so construe the policy would be inconsistent with the terms of section 627.727, Florida Statutes (1985), the version in force at the time of the accident. The decided cases are to the contrary. See Mullis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 252 So. 2d 229, 233, 238 (Fla.1971); Fenwick v. American States Ins. Co., 520 So. 2d 98, 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Weiss, 790 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…issue here does not provide coverage for officers, unless the person is within a covered vehicle. See [*477] Travelers Insurance Co. v. Bartoszewicz, 404 So. 2d 1053, 1055 (Fla. 1981); see also Lampkin v. National Union Fire Ins., Co. of Pittsburgh, 581 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)(Automobile salesman who was struck by underinsured vehicle while he was jogging near home was not entitled to underinsured motorist benefits under policy issued to his employer; salesman was not “occupying” the demonstrator vehicl…
-
Donaldson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 769 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…PER CURIAM AFFIRMED. See Pearcy v. Travelers Indem. Co., 429 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); see also Lampkin v. National Union Fire Ins., Co. of Pittsburgh, 581 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). JOANOS, LAWRENCE AND VAN NORTWICK, JJ., CONCUR.…
Authorities Cited
- Mullis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 252 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 1971)
- Morgan Pearcy & Panco Elec. Contractors, Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 429 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Fenwick v. Am. States Ins. Co., 520 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)