UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID FALLARO AND CAROL FALLARO, HIS WIFE; BERNARD BAPTISTE, A/K/A PIRRE JAMES, 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.
Universal Underwriters appeals a judgment finding it liable for injuries to an employee caused by a vehicle during a test drive. The court reverses, holding that the test drive customer was not an insured under the policy and therefore Universal had no coverage obligation.
Baptiste was not an insured under the policy terms. The policy explicitly defined who could be considered an insured, and Baptiste did not fall within any of those categories. Therefore, Universal had no coverage obligation and the judgment finding liability was reversed.
[1] An unambiguous insurance contract must be given effect as written and does not require judicial construction.
[2] Courts cannot create insurance coverage where none exists on the face of the insurance contract.
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“Baptiste does not fall within any definition of an "insured." An unambiguous contract of insurance does not require construction, and must be given effect as written.”
Establishes the core holding that the policy terms are unambiguous and must be applied according to their plain language
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavid Fallaro, a salesman at Powell Ford, and Bernard Baptiste, a prospective customer, took a test drive. During the drive, a warning light appeared …
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 Permissive User cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Universal Underwriters Insurance Company (Universal), appeals a final judgment finding liability. We reverse.
Appellee, David Fallaro (Fallaro), a salesman at Powell Ford, and appellee, Bernard Baptiste (Baptiste), a prospective customer, took a car for a test drive. A warning light appeared in the car and Baptiste, the driver, stopped the car. As Fallaro exited the car’s passenger side to determine what the problem was, Baptiste sped away, injuring Fallaro.
Fallaro sued Baptiste and Universal, Powell Ford’s insurance carrier. The trial court found that Baptiste was a permissive user of the vehicle, and that Universal was required to provide coverage for Fallaro’s injuries. We reverse.
Baptiste was not an “insured” under the terms of the policy. The policy states the following:
WHO IS AN INSURED—
With respect to the AUTO HAZARD:
1. YOU
2. Any of YOUR partners, paid employees, directors, stockholders, executive officers, a member of their household or a member of YOUR household, while using an AUTO covered by this Coverage Part, or when legally responsible for its use. The actual use of the AUTO must be by YOU or within the scope of YOUR permission.
3. Any other person or organization required by law to be an INSURED while using an AUTO covered by this Coverage Part within the scope of YOUR permission.
With respect to INJURY, as defined in Group 5:
1. YOU
2. Any of YOUR partners, executive officers, directors, stockholders, or paid employees authorized by YOU to act in the ADMINISTRATION of YOUR Employee Benefit Programs.
Baptiste does not fall within any definition of an “insured.” An unambiguous contract of insurance does not require construction, and must be given effect as written. Midwest Mutual Insurance Company v. Santiesteban, 287 So. 2d 665 (Fla.1973); Brown v. Gulf Life Insurance Company, 343 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Courts have no power to create insurance coverage where none exists on the face of the insurance contract. Pastori v. Commercial Union Insurance Company, 473 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); See also American Casualty Company of Reading, P.A. v. Fernandez, 490 So. 2d 1340 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Accordingly, we reverse.
Reversed.
PER CURIAM.
We grant the motion for rehearing in as much as we remove from the first sentence the word “summary”. The first sentence now reads: [Editor’s Note — Change incorporated in the publication of the opinion.]
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Duncan Auto Realty, Ltd. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 754 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…be unambiguous); see also National Indem. Co. v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 472 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Thus, since courts have no power to create insurance coverage where none otherwise exists; see Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Fallaro, 597 So. 2d 818, [*865] 819 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)(citing Midwest Mut. Ins. Co. v. Santiesteban, 287 So. 2d 665 (Fla.1973); Brown v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., 343 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)), we must give this unambiguous contract of insurance its effect as written. Fallar…
-
Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Percefull, 638 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…e language requiring the furnishing of claim forms is required by section 627.611, Florida Statutes (1991). We agree with Lumbermens that the policy is clear and must be given effect as written. See, e.g., Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Fallaro, 597 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). The policy states that if the insurance company fails to provide claim forms, then any written proof covering the occurrence, the character and the extent of the loss will be sufficient to meet the procedural requirements of the…
-
Perrine Food Retailers, Inc. v. Odyssey RE (London) Ltd., 721 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…ire construction, and must be given effect as written. See Midwest Mut. Ins. Co. v. Santiesteban, 287 So. 2d 665, 666-67 (Fla.1973); Weldon v. All Am. Life Ins. Co., 605 So. 2d 911, 914 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Fallaro, 597 So. 2d 818, 819 (Fla. [*404] 3d DCA 1992); Morrison Assurance Co., Inc. v. City of Opa-Locka, 389 So. 2d 1079, 1080 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), Moreover, a reasonable and practical construction should apply in accord with the intention of the parties. See Lindheimer v…
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
- Midwest Mut. Ins. Co. v. Santiesteban, 287 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1973)
- Pastori v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 473 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Earlie Brown v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., 343 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Am. Cas. Co. OF Reading v. Fernandez, 490 So. 2d 1340 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)