RICHARD CROSBY, APPELLANT,
v.
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE 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.
Uninsured motorist benefits are not available to a resident of the insured's household operating a motorcycle not insured under the policy.
A household resident was struck by an uninsured motorist while operating his own motorcycle, which was not insured under the policy.…
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 Dicta cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, Judge.
This appeal involves the issue of whether uninsured motorist benefits are available to a resident of the insured’s household, who was struck by an uninsured motorist while operating a motorcycle owned by him but not insured under the policy. We affirm the trial court’s conclusion that there is no coverage and certify conflict.
The policy provisions and facts in the present case are the same as in Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance v. Phillips, 609 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992), rev. granted, 620 So. 2d 761 (Fla.1993), in which the fifth district concluded there was coverage.
The insurer relies on Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Wright, 543 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), in which this court held that where the claimant is not insured under the liability section of the policy, UM coverage is not mandated by Mullis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 252 So. 2d 229 (Fla.1971). The insurer also argues that the Florida Supreme Court came to the same conclusion in Valiant Ins. Co. v. Webster, 567 So. 2d 408 (Fla.1990). Claimant recognizes that there is language in Valiant which supports the insurer’s argument, but points out the fifth district concluded in Phillips that it was dicta and not controlling.
We affirm because of Wright and certify conflict with Phillips.
Affirmed.
GUNTHER and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Douglas, 627 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…Employees Ins. Co. v. Wright, 543 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 551 So. 2d 464 (Fla.1989) is misplaced since the accident in Wright occurred before the enactment of section 627.727(9). Likewise, Crosby v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 622 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) simply does not address the effect of the 1987 statute. The insured is, therefore, entitled to UM coverage under his GEICO policy. AFFIRMED. HERSEY, J., and WALDEN, JAMES H., Senior Judge, concur.…
-
Moore v. Kelso-Moore, 152 So. 3d 681 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…to the wife is an abuse of discretion, particularly given the fact that the trial court appears to have sided with the [*683] husband regarding the excessiveness of the hours spent by the wife’s firm in the litigation. Although in Piluso v. Piluso, 622 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), we held that it is not per se reversible error when the trial court fails to make explicit findings in support of a temporary award of fees, we concluded that the record in Piluso contained sufficient evidence to support the amo…
-
Otto Hans van Maerssen v. Gerdts, 213 So. 3d 952 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…3, 286 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). The court does not need to make explicit findings, but there must be sufficient evidence in the record to support the amount awarded. See Moore v. Kelso-Moore, 152 So. 3d 681, 682-83 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Piluso v. Piluso, 622 So. 2d 117, 118 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). We cannot determine whether the court’s award in this case of $6,500 per month in temporary support is supported by the evidence. Although the court’s order requires the husband to continue to pay certain child-related exp…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mullis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 252 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 1971)
- Leonardi v. State, 567 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1990)
- Valiant Ins. Co. v. Webster, 567 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1990)
- Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Phillips, 609 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- Progressive Am. Ins. Co. v. Rimek, 609 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Wright, 543 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Singer v. 3675 Bird Rd., Inc., 543 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)