CORNELIUS JOHNSON, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Travelers Commercial Ins. Co. v. Harrington, 154 So. 3d 1106 (Fla. 2014)
  …coverage or exclusions on coverage’ as long as the limitations are unambiguous and ‘consistent with the purposes of the UM statute.’ ” Sommerville v. Allstate Ins. Co., 65 So. 3d 558, 562 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (quoting Varro v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 854 So. 2d 726, 728-29 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)). Here, the terms and conditions of the insurance policy expressly and unambiguously excluded the vehicle in question from the definition of an “uninsured motor vehicle.” Thus, the family vehicle exclusion does not conflic…
• Lenon Diaz-Hernandez v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 19 So. 3d 996 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
  …nsured violates the clear policy articulated in Armstrong, 712 So. 2d at 788, that the purpose of the UM coverage is to protect the injured motorist, not to benefit the UM carrier or the uninsured motorist. See also Varro v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 854 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). If State Farm is in doubt as to whose negligence caused the action, it may call the uninsured motorist as a witness. If State Farm intends to seek subrogation against the uninsured motorist, it may bring the uninsured motorist in…
• Sommerville v. Allstate Ins. Co., 65 So. 3d 558 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)
  …ects UM coverage entirely or selects lower UM limits.5 “The UM statute is intended to protect injured people and is not intended to benefit insurance companies or motorists who cause damage to other people.” Varro v. Feder [*562] ated Mut. Ins. Co., 854 So. 2d 726, 729 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (citations omitted); see Armstrong v. Allstate Ins. Co., 712 So. 2d 788, 790 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (citations omitted). Uninsured motorist coverage “is statutorily intended to provide the reciprocal or mutual equivalent of auto…

  ← 1 / 2 →

Authorities Cited

• Hayes v. State, 855 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)