STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
MARLENE FERRO AND JOHN FERRO, 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.
The court held that an insurer providing uninsured/underinsured coverage has no liability once the appellees' damages are established to be less than the tort-feasors' primary insurance coverage limits.
Appellees sued tort-feasors and their insurer for injuries from an auto accident. A verdict was returned against the tort-feasors for an amount less t…
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 Underinsured Motorist Coverage cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, challenges the final judgments entered against it and in favor of the appellees, Marlene Ferro and John Ferro. We reverse.
The appellees filed a negligence action against two tort-feasors for injuries resulting from an automobile accident occurring in 1986. The appellant was named as a party defendant because it provided uninsured/underinsured coverage to the appel-lees. A verdict was returned against the two tort-feasors in an amount less than the primary insurance coverage provided to the tort-feasors. The trial court entered final judgments in favor of each of the appellees against the tort-feasors and the appellant, jointly and severally. The court reserved jurisdiction to award costs. This timely appeal followed.
We agree with the appellant’s contention that once it was established that the appel-lees’ damages were less than the policy limits of the tort-feasors’ primary insurance coverage, and this is uncontested, it was also established that the appellant had no liability to the appellees. The trial court at that point should have entered a judgment for the appellant, and it erred by failing to do so. See Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Brewton, 538 So. 2d 1375 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). We, accordingly, reverse and remand for the entry of judgments in favor of the appellant.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
SCHOONOVER, C.J., and PARKER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Neff v. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. OF Hartford, 133 So. 3d 530 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…. Moher, 734 So. 2d 1088, 1088 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (“Because [insured’s] settlement with the second [tortfeasor] exceeded the amount of damages found by the jury, UM coverage is not applicable in this case.”); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Ferro, 581 So. 2d 605, 606 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (holding that “once it was established that the [insureds’] damages were less than the policy limits of the tortfeasors’ primary insurance coverage, and this is uncontested, it was also established that the [insurer] had no l…
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Marko, 695 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…above Mayer’s coverage of $50,000. If Marko had accepted the State Farm offer of judgment, that amount could not have been used as a setoff against the $30,000 verdict in favor of Marko and against Mayer. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Ferro, 581 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Brewton, 538 So. 2d 1375 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Having determined that the offer of judgment made by State Farm to Marko was not applicable because the statute applied to net awards, the trial cour…
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Laurel Moher, 734 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Brewton, 538 So. 2d 1375 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)