DOROTHEA SMITH, ET VIR., PETITIONERS,
v.
VALLEY FORGE 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 insured passenger in her own vehicle driven by an uninsured adult child not residing in the household is precluded from obtaining uninsured motorist (UM) benefits under the policy's family-car exclusion, affirming longstanding precedent that such exclusions are not against public policy.
The Court answered the certified question in the affirmative, holding that the injured party is precluded from obtaining UM benefits. The policy's definition of an uninsured motor vehicle, which excludes vehicles owned by or furnished for regular use of the insured or family members, prevents coverage under the circumstances presented.
[1] An insurance policy provision excluding coverage for an automobile owned by or furnished for regular use to the named insured is valid and not against public policy.
[2] The "family-household exclusion" in an insurance policy is valid and does not violate public policy.
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“To hold otherwise in this case would completely nullify the family-household exclusion.”
Establishes the Court's rationale for why family-car exclusions in UM coverage do not violate public policy and must be enforced as written
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDorothea Smith was injured as a passenger in her own automobile driven by her adult daughter who did not reside with Smith, owned no vehicle, and carr…
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 Family-Household Exclusion cases and more on FLexlaw
HARDING, Justice.
We have for review Smith v. Valley Forge Insurance Co., 566 So. 2d 612, 613 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), where the Fourth District Court of Appeal certified the following question to be one of great public importance: WHERE AN INSURED UNDER AN AUTOMOBILE POLICY PROVIDING LIABILITY AND UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE IS A PASSENGER IN THE INSURED VEHICLE, BEING DRIVEN BY AN ADULT CHILD NOT A RESIDENT OF THE HOUSEHOLD, WHO OWNS NO VEHICLE AND IS UNINSURED, SUSTAINS INJURIES BY VIRTUE OF THE DRIVER’S NEGLIGENCE, IS THE INJURED PARTY PRECLUDED FROM OBTAINING UM BENEFITS UNDER THE HOLDING OF REID V. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY CO., 352 SO.2D 1172 (FLA.1978)?
We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution. We answer the certified question in the affirmative, and approve the decision below.
Dorothea Smith (Smith) was injured in a car accident while a passenger in her own automobile. The automobile was driven by Smith’s adult daughter who did not reside with Smith and who neither owned a car nor had liability insurance. Smith’s insurance policy provided both liability and uninsured motorist coverage. The trial court found that the liability and uninsured motorist provisions contained exceptions which precluded coverage for Smith. Consequently, the trial court granted summary judgment to Valley Forge Insurance Company (Valley Forge). On appeal, the district court affirmed the summary judgment for Valley Forge based upon this Court’s decision in Reid v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 352 So. 2d 1172 (Fla.1977), and the Fourth District Court’s en banc opinion in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Palacino, 562 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). The district court noted possible conflict with Jernigan v. Progressive American Insurance Co., 501 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), and also certified the question for this Court’s review.
In Reid, this Court upheld the validity of a family-household exclusion in liability coverage. Additionally, the Court recognized that the family-car exclusion in the uninsured motorist coverage was not against public policy because “[t]o hold otherwise in this case would completely nullify the family-household exclusion.” 352 So. 2d at 1174. The insurance policy at issue in Reid provided that an “uninsured motor vehicle” may not be the vehicle defined in the policy as the insured vehicle. Id. This Court stated that by the terms of the policy the vehicle was insured, and it did not become uninsured because liability coverage was not available to a particular individual. Id. at 1173.
In Brixius v. Allstate Insurance Co., 589 So. 2d 236 (Fla.1991), we addressed a situation similar to the one in the instant case. Brixius involved a woman who was injured while a passenger in her own vehicle which was driven by an uninsured friend. In that case, we recognized that Reid was controlling, and determined that the policy did not entitle the injured woman to uninsured motorist coverage. Id. at 237. We also disapproved Jemigan to the extent that it conflicted with Brixius. Id.
In the policy at issue in this case, the definition of an uninsured motor vehicle excludes any vehicle that is “owned by or furnished or available for the regular use of you or any family member.” Based upon both Reid and Brixius, we find that this provision precludes uninsured motorist coverage for Smith under the circumstances presented.
Accordingly, we answer the certified question in the affirmative and approve the decision below.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD and GRIMES, JJ., concur. BARKETT and KOGAN, JJ., concur in result only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Travelers Commercial Ins. Co. v. Harrington, 154 So. 3d 1106 (Fla. 2014)….727(3)(b) because the statute clearly states that the term “uninsured motor vehicle” is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. Furthermore, we have historically upheld such policy definitions. See, e.g., Smith v. Valley Forge Ins. Co., 591 So. 2d 926, 927 (Fla.1992) (holding that the insurance policy’s provision excluding “any vehicle that is ‘owned by or furnished or available for the regular use of you or any family member’ ” from the definition of an uninsured vehicle was valid and precluded…
-
Omar v. Allstate Ins. Co. & United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 632 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…ial compliance statement. Thus, it appears that this issue was never presented to the trial court. Therefore, this ground cannot support the summary judgment. The cases relied on by Allstate are distinguishable. Smith v. Valley Forge Insurance Co., 591 So. 2d 926 (Fla.1992), Brixius v. Allstate Insurance Co., 589 So. 2d 236 (Fla.1991), and Reid v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 352 So. 2d 1172 (Fla.1977) involve situations in which the insureds were injured in then-own automobiles which were being driven by…
-
Warren v. The Travelers Ins. Co. & The Phoenix Ins. Co., 650 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…n of an uninsured vehicle), an injured person may not claim that the vehicle is uninsured as to herself so as to recover uninsured motorist benefits in lieu of liability benefits. Reid, 352 So. 2d at 1173-74; see also Smith v. Valley Forge Ins. Co., 591 So. 2d 926 (Fla.1992); Brixius v. Allstate Ins. Co., 589 So. 2d 236 (Fla.1991). Unlike Chandler, these opinions do not consider the validity of the “your car” exclusion from uninsured motorist coverage where an injured person is entitled to recover liability b…
Previewing 3 of 5 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)
- Brixius v. Allstate Ins. Co., 589 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 1991)
- Reed v. State, 501 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Jernigan v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co., 501 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Genioveza Perez and Raphael Vargas v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 562 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Dorothea Smith and Jack Smith v. Valley Forge Ins. Co., 566 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)