STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
LAUREL MOHER, 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/underinsured motorist (UM) coverage is not triggered when the tortfeasor's liability coverage exceeds the jury's awarded damages.
Moher, a passenger, was injured in an auto accident and sued the drivers and her insurer, State Farm, for UM benefits. The tortfeasor's insurer settle…
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 Underinsured Motorist Coverage cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Acting Chief Judge.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company appeals an adverse judgment in favor of Laurel Moher and argues that the verdict is contrary to the uninsured/underinsured motorist (“UM”) statutes. We agree and reverse.
While riding as a passenger, Moher was involved in an automobile accident. In a subsequent lawsuit, Moher asserted negligence claims against the driver of the car in which she was riding and against the driver of the second car involved in the accident. Moher also asserted a claim against her insurer, State Farm, for UM benefits. Prior to trial, both drivers were voluntarily dismissed from the lawsuit. The driver of the second car was dismissed after his insurance carrier settled Moher’s claim for $50,000. The trial proceeded on the sole remaining count for UM coverage. The jury returned a verdict of approximately $33,000 in damages and a finding of no permanent injury.
In light of the jury verdict establishing damages at less than the amount Moher received from the second driver, State Farm contends that UM coverage was not triggered and that the trial court should have entered judgment in its favor. In this argument, State Farm is correct. See § 627.727, Fla. Stat. (1991). UM coverage is excess coverage and “pays over and above the tortfeasor’s liability coverage should said coverage be inadequate to fully compensate the injured insured.” Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Brewton, 538 So. 2d 1375, 1376 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). See also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Fern, 581 So .2d 605 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (citing Brewton). Because Moher’s settlement with the second driver exceeded the amount of damages found by the jury, UM coverage is not applicable in this case. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for entry of judgment in State Farm’s favor. Reversed and remanded.
FULMER and WHATLEY, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Neff v. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. OF Hartford, 133 So. 3d 530 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (holding “that the trial court erred in entering a judgment for the plaintiffs [under their UM policy] when they failed to prove that their damages exceeded the tortfeasor’s policy limits”); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Moher, 734 So. 2d 1088, 1088 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (“Because [insured’s] settlement with the second [tortfeasor] exceeded the amount of damages found by the jury, UM coverage is not applicable in this case.”); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Ferro, 581 So. 2d 605, 606 (Fla…
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Vecchio, 744 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…SAA Casualty Insurance Co., 695 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). A set-off against a UM award is only proper where the award duplicates benefits already recovered from the tort-feasor’s liability insurer. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Moher, 734 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Galante v. USAA Cos. Ins. Co., 695 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Brewton, 538 So. 2d 1375 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). While it is true that the UM carrier seeking such a set-off has the burden of estab…
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Alyson M. Williams, 826 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…not reached. We agree and reverse. “UM coverage is excess coverage ‘and pays over and above the tortfeasor’s liability coverage should said coverage be inadequate to fully compensate the injured insured.’ ” State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Moher, 734 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)(quoting Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Brewton, 538 So. 2d 1375, 1376 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)); see also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Ferro, 581 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Because the settlement received by the plaintiff fr…
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
- Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Brewton, 538 So. 2d 1375 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Ferro, 581 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)