FIRST FLORIDIAN AUTO AND HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
BEVERLY J. THOMPSON AND BETTY J. CHRISTENSEN, 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.
An insurance company denied coverage to a woman injured in her mother's car based on a household relationship exclusion clause. The trial court granted summary judgment for coverage, finding the term "resident" in the exclusionary clause ambiguous and construing it in favor of the insured. The appellate court affirmed, holding that under established law, exclusionary clauses must be construed in favor of coverage.
The court held that the undefined term "resident" in the exclusionary clause was ambiguous. Under established law, exclusionary clauses in insurance policies are construed in favor of the insured. Applying this rule, Thompson was not a "resident" of her mother's household, and therefore coverage existed.
[1] Ambiguous terms in insurance exclusionary clauses are construed in favor of the insured.
[2] An undefined term in an insurance policy's exclusionary clause may be deemed ambiguous.
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“Exclusionary clauses are construed in favor of an insured.”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that ambiguities in insurance exclusionary clauses must be resolved in favor of providing coverage to the insured.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBeverly Thompson, a married woman living in Minnesota with her husband, came to her mother Betty Christensen's home in Largo, Florida in September 199…
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 Construction Of Insurance Policy Exclusions cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant, First Floridian Auto and Home Insurance Company (insurer), denied Appellee, Beverly J. Thompson, coverage for injuries she received while riding as a passenger in her mother’s vehicle, which was insured by the insurer. The trial court entered final summary judgment in favor of coverage, and the insurer appeals. We affirm.
The insurer had denied Thompson coverage on the basis of an exclusionary clause in the automobile policy of Thompson’s mother, Betty J. Christensen. That clause provided: “We do not provide Liability Coverages for any person for ‘bodily injury’ to anyone related to that person who is a resident of the same household.”
Exclusionary clauses are construed in favor of an insured. See Progressive Ins. Co. v. Wesley, 702 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), review denied, 717 So. 2d 536 (Fla.1998). The trial court found that the undefined term “resident” in the exclusionary clause in question was ambiguous and construed it in favor of coverage.
Appellee Thompson, a married woman with three adult children and several grandchildren, lived with her husband in Montevideo, Minnesota. However, when she began having marriage difficulties, she came to her parents’ home in Largo, Florida, around September 3, 1996, to see what possibilities were open to her in Florida if she decided to continue her separation from her husband. Appellee Christensen testified by deposition that Thompson was “visiting,” that she had come “to see her father, who was in a nursing home. To be with me and to get her life, maybe, back in order a little bit and see if she could make some money.”
On December 3, 1996, Thompson was seriously injured in an automobile accident in which she was a passenger in her mother’s automobile. She was in and out of hospitals until mid-February 1997. She then recuperated in Appellee Christensen’s home. She spent the month of March and part of April 1997 in Wisconsin with her daughter. She spent the remainder of April 1997 with other family in Wisconsin and Minnesota and returned to Appellee Christensen’s home in May 1997. On June 30, 1997, she returned to her marital home in Minnesota. The insurer denied Thompson’s claim under Christensen’s policy, asserting that she was a “resident” of Christensen’s household, which barred her from coverage under the exclusionary clause. However, the trial judge, on undisputed facts, construed the ambiguous term “resident” in favor of coverage and held that Thompson was not a “resident” of Christensen’s household. Because no genuine issues of material fact remain, and the trial court correctly construed the exclusionary clause so as to provide coverage, we conclude that the trial court correctly found that coverage existed. Accordingly, the court did not err in entering summary final judgment in favor of appellees.
Affirmed.
PARKER, J„ and DANAHY, PAUL W„ (Senior) Judge, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Gilda Menendez, 24 So. 3d 809 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…Fla. 2d DCA 2001). We begin our analysis with the well-established principles guiding interpretations of insurance policies — that “[exclusionary clauses [must be] construed in favor of an insured,” First Floridian Auto & Home Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 763 So. 2d 407, 408 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), and if a policy’s language is subject to differing interpretations, the language “should be construed liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer.” State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. CTC Dev. Corp., 720 So.…
Authorities Cited
- Progressive Ins. Co. v. The Est. OF Elizabeth J. Wesley, 702 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)