BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD OF FLORIDA, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
ANGELA STECK, 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 court held that there was no conflict between the two cases because the insurance policies and factual circumstances were substantially different.
The court reviewed two cases, Steck and English, concerning intoxication exclusions in insurance policies. Steck involved a health insurance policy wh…
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 Life Insurance Policy cases and more on FLexlaw
SHAW, J.
We have for review Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. v. Steck, 778 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), based on apparent conflict with American Heritage Life Insurance Co. v. English, 786 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Both cases concern the applicability of an intoxication exclusion in an insurance policy. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. Upon further consideration, we find no conflict. Not only are the policy provisions 1 and factual underpinnings2 of these two cases substantially different, the insurance policies themselves are different in kind. The policy in Steck was a health insurance policy; the policy in English was a fife insurance policy. The parties have cited specific statutory provisions governing intoxication exclusions in health insurance policies,3 but they have cited no similar statutory provisions governing intoxication exclusions in life insurance policies.
We dismiss Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. v. Steck, 778 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).
It is’so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS, and QUINCE, JJ., concur. . The intoxication exclusion in Steck read a follows:
This contract does not provide benefits for ... a condition resulting from you being drunk or under the influence of any narcotic unless taken on the advice of a physician.
Steck, 778 So. 2d at 375. The exclusion in English read as follows:
[This] policy does not cover any loss incurred as a result of:
d. Any injury sustained while under the influence of alcohol or any narcotic unless administered upon the advice of a physician.
English, 786 So. 2d at 1281.
. Steck was injured when she stepped in front of an oncoming vehicle; English was killed in a single-car accident while driving a friend's car. Both Steck and English were intoxicated.
. See, e.g., §§ 627.618, .629, Fla. Stat. (2001).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Am. Heritage Life Ins. Co. v. Morales, 159 So. 3d 160 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…cts” and the insurer’s higher burden to establish that a claim came within an exclusion under an all-risk policy. Id. at 1388-89. Differences between types of insurance policies cannot be ignored. See Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Fla., Inc. v. Steck, 818 So. 2d 465, 465 (Fla.2002) (distinguishing between alcohol exclusions in life and health insurance policies). Focusing on the cases involving the type of exclusion and policy at issue in this case, an alcohol exclusion provision in an accidental death policy…
Authorities Cited
- Blue Cross & Blue Shield OF Fla., Inc. v. Steck, 778 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Am. Heritage Life Ins. Co. v. English, 786 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)