ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, 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 renter's insurer does not owe the rental agency, a non-insured under the policy, any duty of defense or indemnification, even if the insurer owes a duty to its insured renter.
The case involves a certified question regarding whether a renter's insurer owes a duty of defense and indemnification to the rental agency, a non-ins…
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 Insurance Coverage cases and more on FLexlaw
OVERTON, Justice.
We have for review a decision ruling upon the following question certified to be of great public importance:
ASSUMING THAT THE RENTER’S INSURER OWES A DUTY OF DEFENSE AND INDEMNIFICATION TO ITS INSURED, THE RENTER, DOES THE RENTER’S INSURER OWE THE RENTAL AGENCY, A NON INSURED UNDER THE POLICY, ANY DUTY OF DEFENSE AND/OR INDEMNIFICATION?
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Reliance Ins. Co., 679 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. In Allstate Insurance Co. v. RJT Enterprises, 22 Fla. L. Weekly S49, 692 So. 2d 142 (Pla. Jan. 23, 1997), we addressed the same question. In that case, we rephrased the certified question as follows:
DID THE LEGISLATURE INTEND TO ALLOW MOTOR VEHICLE LESSORS TO SHIFT THE DUTY TO DEFEND TO THE LESSEE’S INSURER IN SITUATIONS WHERE THE INSURER OF THE LESSEE HAS A DUTY TO DEFEND ITS INSURED AND ITS INSURED HAS CONTRACTED WITH THE LESSOR TO PROVIDE PRIMARY INSURANCE COVERAGE TO THE EXTENT OF THE LIMITS OF THE LESSEE’S POLICY?
RJT, 22 Fla. L. Weekly at S49, 692 So. 2d at 143. We answered the rephrased question in the negative. Id. Consistent with that decision, we rephrase the certified question in this ease and answer it in the negative. We decline the invitation to address other issues not certified by the district court.
Accordingly, we quash the decision of the district court to the extent that it addresses the issue raised by the certified question. Further, we remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
KOGAN, C.J., and SHAW and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. GRIMES, HARDING and WELLS, JJ., dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miami Stage Lighting, Inc. v. Budget Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc., 712 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…he 627.7263(2) requirement that the risk-shifting clause inform “the lessee of the provisions of subsection (1)....” Contrary to Budget’s argument, Allstate Ins. Co. v. Reliance Ins. Co., 679 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), quashed on other grounds, 692 So. 2d 891 (Fla.1997), and Interamerican Car Rental, Inc. v. Safeway Ins. Co., 615 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), do not require affirmance. The clause approved by this court in Allstate , placed the lessee on notice that the duty to provide insurance was gove…
Authorities Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. RJT Enters., Inc., 692 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 1997)
- Allstate Ins. Co. & Nancy Elias v. Reliance Ins. Co., 679 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)