ANDRAS SERFOZO, APPELLANT,
v.
THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, INC., 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.
Serfozo, injured in a Florida accident while driving an employer's truck, sued for declaratory relief regarding uninsured motorist coverage under a policy issued by Travelers. The court affirmed summary judgment dismissing the suit as barred by Georgia's statute of limitations, holding that Georgia law applied to this insurance dispute despite the accident occurring in Florida.
Georgia's statute of limitations applies to bar the suit. The location where the contract is completed, not where the tort occurs, determines which state's statute of limitations applies. Georgia law governs because the policy was issued to a Georgia corporation with its principal place of business in Georgia through a Georgia agent.
[1] A statute of limitations from a state with a significant connection to the insurance contract and the parties may apply to a claim for uninsured motorist coverage, even i…
[2] The location of the tort is not necessarily dispositive in determining which state's statute of limitations applies to an insurance coverage dispute.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“the place where the contract is completed is where the cause of action accrues”
Establishes the controlling principle for determining which state's statute of limitations applies to insurance contracts
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was injured in a Florida accident while driving a truck owned by his Georgia-based employer corporation. Travelers issued the insurance poli…
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 Lex Loci Delicti cases and more on FLexlaw
[*279] KLEIN, J.
Appellant was injured in an accident in Florida, while driving a truck owned by his employer, a corporation headquartered in Georgia. In this suit, appellant seeks declaratory relief to determine whether he has uninsured motorist coverage under a policy issued by Travelers to his employer. The trial court granted Travelers’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that this suit, filed more than two years after the accident, was barred by Georgia’s statute of limitations. We affirm.
Travelers motion for summary judgment, arguing that Georgia law applied, was accompanied by affidavits stating that appellant’s employer was a Georgia corporation with its principal place of business in Georgia, that the insurance policy was issued by a Georgia agent in Georgia, and that all of the vehicles covered by the policy were registered and primarily garaged by the employer in Georgia.
Travelers relies on Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. August, 530 So. 2d 293 (Fla.1988), in which an insured was injured in an accident in Florida and sought UM coverage under a policy issued to her grandmother, with whom the insured lived, in Massachusetts. The insured sued in Florida almost five years after the accident, and the Florida Supreme Court held that the claim was barred by the Massachusetts three-year statute of limitations, citing Colhoun v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 265 So. 2d 18 (Fla.1972)(the place where the contract is completed is where the cause of action accrues). In Lumbermens the Supreme Court rejected the insured’s argument that the location of the tort was dispositive.
Appellant argues that North Carolina law should apply because Travelers is regionally headquartered in North Carolina, and the policy was signed by' Travelers in North Carolina. We disagree. Bennett v. Granite State Ins. Co., 526 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)(Georgia law applicable where insurance policy was delivered in Georgia to a Georgia resident whose principle place of business was located in Georgia).
We agree with the trial court’s conclusion that the Georgia statute of limitations was applicable and therefore affirm.
DELL and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Winona Ellis v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 909 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…at state. § 95.10, Fla. Stat. (1999). In Florida, the doctrine of lex loci contractus determines where a cause of action for UM benefits arose.3 See Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. August, 530 So. 2d 293, 295 (Fla.1988); Serfozo v. Travelers Indem. Co., 788 So. 2d 278, 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Under this doctrine, the cause of action arose where the contract was executed, which in this case is Georgia. Id. Because this cause of action arose in Georgia, we must determine whether this action would be barred if file…1 / 2
-
Herman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 923 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…rse the summary judgment in State Farm’s favor and remand for further proceedings. Reversed and remanded. ALTENBERND and DAVIS, JJ., Concur. . In Ellis, 909 So. 2d at 596-97, we noted an apparent conflict with Serfozo v. Traveler’s Indemnity Co., 788 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), involving a question of Georgia law, but declined to certify the conflict to the Florida Supreme Court. We also decline to certify the conflict here.…
Authorities Cited
- Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. August, 530 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1988)
- Colhoun v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 265 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1972)
- Bennett v. Granite State Ins. Co., 526 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)