ROBERT PETERSEN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, 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.
Petersen appeals a summary judgment denying uninsured motorist coverage for injuries sustained in a motorcycle accident. The court reversed, finding that the term "motor vehicle" in the uninsured motorist exclusion was ambiguous and must be construed against the insurer, State Farm.
The term "motor vehicle" as used in the uninsured motorist section of the policy is ambiguous. Any ambiguity in an exclusionary provision of an insurance policy must be construed against the issuer, therefore Petersen is entitled to uninsured motorist coverage.
[1] Ambiguities in an insurance policy's exclusionary provisions are construed against the insurer.
[2] The definition of "motor vehicle" in one section of an insurance policy may apply to other sections if not explicitly excluded.
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“If there is any ambiguity in an insurance policy concerning an exclusionary provision, the ambiguity is construed against the issuer of the policy.”
Establishes the foundational rule that exclusionary provisions containing ambiguities must be interpreted in favor of the insured and against the insurer.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetersen was riding his motorcycle when he was hit by an uninsured motorist and sustained injuries. He filed a claim with State Farm, which denied cov…
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 Contra Proferentem cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Robert Petersen (Petersen), appeals a summary judgment in favor of appellee, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (State Farm). We reverse.
Petersen was driving his motorcycle when he was involved in an accident with an uninsured motorist. Petersen was injured and filed a claim with his insurer, State Farm. State Farm denied the claim on the ground that the motorcycle was not a listed vehicle under Petersen’s policy.
The “uninsured motorist” section of the policy contained the following exclusion:
There is no coverage:
For bodily injury to an insured, while occupying a motor vehicle owned by you, your spouse or any relative if it is not insured for this coverage under this policy-
The term “motor vehicle” is defined elsewhere in the policy as follows:
Motor vehicle — means a vehicle with four or more wheels that:
1. is self-propelled and is of a type;
a. designed for, and
b. required to be licensed for use in Florida highways; or
2. is a trailer or semitrailer designed for use with a vehicle described in 1 above.
Petersen sued State Farm seeking a declaratory judgment that there was uninsured motorist coverage under the policy for the motorcycle accident. The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of State Farm.
Petersen asserts that although the “uninsured motorist” section of the policy excludes “motor vehicles”, his motorcycle is not a “motor vehicle” under the definitional terms of the policy because it has two wheels. Thus, Petersen argues that he is entitled to uninsured motorist coverage.
State Farm contends that the definition of “motor vehicle” found elsewhere in the policy does not apply to the “uninsured motorist” section. Thus, State Farm contends that the term “motor vehicle” in the “uninsured motorist” section of the policy must be given its plain and ordinary meaning, which includes motorcycles.
If there is any ambiguity in an insurance policy concerning an exclusionary provision, the ambiguity is construed against the issuer of the policy. National Automobile Insurance Association v. Brumit, 98 So. 2d 330 (Fla.1957). Ceron v. Paxton National Insurance Company, 537 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 545 So. 2d 1368 (Fla.1989). Here, an ambiguity arises concerning the term “motor vehicle” as used in the “uninsured motorist” section. It is unclear whether the term was intended to mean a vehicle with four or more wheels, as stated in a different section of the policy, or whether the term was to be given its normal everyday usage, which arguably would include motorcycles.
We find that the term “motor vehicle” was ambiguous as used in the policy. This ambiguity must be construed against State Farm. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for entry of summary judgment in favor of Petersen.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Grant v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 638 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 1994)…McDONALD, Senior Justice. We have for review Grant v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 620 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), which conflicts with Petersen v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 615 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution. We approve Grant and disapprove Petersen. Michael Grant was -involved in an accident when the motorcycle owned and operated by him collided…
-
Clough v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., 636 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…but not insured under the liability policy was a “motor vehicle” as that term was used in an “other owned vehicle” exclusion from uninsured motorist coverage.1 The Third District ruled to the contrary in Petersen v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 615 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. granted, 623 So. 2d 495 (Fla.1993), holding that the term “motor vehicle” as used in the uninsured motorist exclusion was ambiguous and must be construed against the insurer on a claim arising from a motorcycle accident. These ca…
-
Grant v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 620 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…PER CURIAM. The petition for rehearing is denied. However, we acknowledge that our opinion conflicts with that of the Third District in Petersen v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 615 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). In Petersen, the Third District reaches an opposite result on virtually identical facts. ANSTEAD and HERSEY, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Nat'l Auto. Ins. Ass'n v. Brumit, 98 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1957)
- Patricio Ceron and Linda Ceron v. Paxton Nat'l Ins. Co., 537 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)