KITTERIDGE S. FITZGIBBON, PETITIONER,
v.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, ETC., RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court held that an insurance company may validly exclude uninsured motorist coverage to household members injured by the negligence of another household member, even where the negligent driver died in the accident and spousal immunity is not a bar. The Court rejected the argument that such family exclusion clauses violate public policy or the statutory requirement to provide uninsured motorist coverage.
An insurance company may validly exclude uninsured motorist coverage to household members injured by the negligence of another household member. The Court answered the rephrased issue in the affirmative and held that family exclusion clauses are valid and do not violate statutory requirements or public policy.
[1] An automobile insurance policy may exclude uninsured motorist coverage to members of a household injured while occupying the insured vehicle by the negligence of another…
[2] Family exclusion clauses in automobile insurance policies are valid under Florida law.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“We rule that it can, answer the rephrased issue in the affirmative, and approve the district court's decision on this issue.”
States the Court's holding that family exclusion clauses in insurance policies are valid and enforceable.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFitzgibbon was injured in an automobile accident while occupying a vehicle owned and driven by her husband, who died in the same accident. The insuran…
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 Spousal Immunity cases and more on FLexlaw
McDonald, justice.
In Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Fitzgibbon, 568 So. 2d 113, 115 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), the district court certified the following question as being one of great public importance:
Does the denial of uninsured motorist benefits under a family exclusion clause in an automobile insurance policy for an insured’s widow who was injured in an automobile driven negligently by her deceased husband violate the requirements of section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1987), to provide uninsured motorist coverage since she would not be barred by spousal immunity from obtaining a judgment against her husband’s estate, and under the factual situation there is no possibility of a collusive lawsuit, since the driver was killed in the accident? We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We rephrase the issue as whether an insurance company may exclude uninsured motorist coverage to members of a household injured, while occupying the insured vehicle, by the negligence of a member of the household. We rule that it can, answer the rephrased issue in the affirmative, and approve the district court’s decision on this issue.
Fitzgibbon was injured in an accident while occupying a vehicle owned and driven by her husband, who died in the same accident. She claimed benefits under the third-party tort or uninsured provisions of the insurance policy issued to the Fitzgib-bons by Government Employees.
The only difference between this case and Allstate Insurance Co. v. Dascoli, 497 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1986), and Reid v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 352 So. 2d 1172 (Fla.1977), is the death of the husband-driver. None of the insurance policies involved in any of these cases extended coverage for bodily injury to any member of an insured’s household residing in that household.
Fitzgibbon, however, argues that the liability and uninsured motorist exclusion should be voided as against public policy, particularly when her husband was killed. She relies on Sturiano v. Brooks, 523 So. 2d 1126 (Fla.1988), wherein we modified prior existing law by allowing a widow to sue her husband’s estate to the extent insurance is available. Nowhere in Sturi-ano did we suggest that a family exclusion policy is void for being against public policy. An underlying reasoning for Sturiano was to prevent the forfeiture of coverage, if there had been such coverage, in a policy because of the common law family tort immunity. We did not mandate, and do not now mandate, that third-party liability or uninsured motorist protection must be provided to a member of a household injured through the fault of another member of the household. In Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Co. v. Government Employees Insurance Co., 387 So. 2d 932 (Fla.1980), we held that family exclusion clauses are valid, and neither Sturiano nor subsection 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1987), is a sufficient basis to overturn our recognition of the applicability of such exclusion under the facts presented here.
We approve the decision under review.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur. BARKETT, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Phillips, 609 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…DCA 1990). This reasoning follows logically from Florida’s long-standing refusal to permit insurers to “whittle away” at UM coverage with endless exclusions. Gov’t Employees Ins. Co. v. Fitzgibbon, 568 So. 2d 113, 115 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), approved, 583 So. 2d 1020 (Fla.1991). In the instant case, the Phillipses claim Nationwide did not satisfy the notice requirement of section 627.727(9). As noted earlier, in response to the Phillipses’ request for admissions, Nationwide admitted that it did not obtain from…
-
Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Bonnema, 601 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…e that a two-page revision to the Florida Endorsement Booklet, labeled “PAC 3094H (Ed. 1198),” also gives notice of the family exclusion. Family exclusion provisions in insurance policies are valid. Fitzgibbon v. Government Employees Insurance Co., 583 So. 2d 1020 (Fla.1991); Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Co. v. Government Employees Insurance Co., 387 So. 2d 932 (Fla.1980); Reid v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 352 So. 2d 1172 (Fla.1977). The rationale expressed in support of the exclusion is to prevent the…1 / 2
-
Chrysler Credit Corp. v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 625 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…he Florida Supreme Court has held that “[ejxclusionary clauses in liability insurance policies are always strictly construed.” Demshar v. AAACon Auto Transport, Inc., 337 So. 2d 963, 965 (Fla. 1976). In Fitzgibbon v. Government Employees Insur. Co., 583 So. 2d 1020 (Fla.1991), the supreme court recognized that a carrier may be immune from liability on a claim against the estate of a deceased family member. The injured wife in Fitzgibbon attempted to sue the estate of her husband, who had died in the same accid…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 8 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)
- Sturiano v. Martin Brooks Ad Litem of the Estate of Vito Sturiano, 523 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 1988)
- Fla. Farm Bureau Ins. Co. v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., 387 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1980)
- Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Kitteridge S. Fitzgibbon, 568 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Dascoli, 497 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1986)
- Reno v. Person, 497 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1986)