NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
GAEA J. GARRITY, 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.
Nationwide sought certiorari review of a circuit court order denying its motion for judgment on the pleadings in an uninsured motorists claim. The court held that while the policy language plainly barred recovery under the uninsured motorists endorsement, Nationwide failed to establish the irreparable harm necessary for certiorari review, and the trial court's order was not immediately appealable.
The court held that while the uninsured motorists endorsement plainly barred recovery in this case, Nationwide failed to satisfy the irreparable harm requirement for certiorari relief. The court also held that the trial court's order was not immediately appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(m) because no explicit ruling on insurance coverage was made and the claim was asserted only against the insurer, not the insured.
[1] An uninsured motorists endorsement does not provide coverage for a vehicle owned by the insured and insured under the liability coverage of the same policy, when operated…
[2] A petition for writ of certiorari seeking to quash an order denying a motion for judgment on the pleadings must establish irreparable harm.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“We will not consider as an uninsured motor vehicle: ... (d) any motor vehicle owned by, or furnished for the regular use of [the insured] or a relative; nor (e) any motor vehicle insured under the liability coverage of this policy unless your auto is being operated by a non-family member causing bodily injury to you or a relative.”
The pertinent uninsured motorists endorsement clause that plainly excludes the vehicle at issue from coverage
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMs. Garrity was a passenger injured in an automobile accident caused by Nationwide's insured driver. She had already received the full $100,000 liabil…
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 Automobile Insurance Policy Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company seeks a writ of certiorari quashing a circuit court order denying a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The underlying complaint by the respondent, Ms. Garrity, sought recovery under a $50,000 uninsured motorists endorsement for bodi*238ly injuries sustained in a single-vehicle automobile accident in which she was the passenger and Nationwide’s insured was the driver. Ms. Garrity had already received from Nationwide the full policy limit ($100,000) under the liability provisions of the policy.
The pertinent clause in the uninsured motorists endorsement in the policy is not ambiguous. It states:
We will not consider as an uninsured motor vehicle: ... (d) any motor vehicle owned by, or furnished for the regular use of [the insured] or a relative; nor (e) any motor vehicle insured under the liability coverage of this policy unless your auto is being operated by a non-family member causing bodily injury to you or a relative.
On the face of the pleadings, it was undisputed that the vehicle in the accident was owned by the insured, that it was insured under the liability coverage of the policy, and that the vehicle was operated by the insured, causing injury to a person who was not a named insured or a relative of a named insured. Here, as in Travelers Insurance Company v. Warren, 678 So.2d 324 (Fla.1996), the respondent may not obtain a further recovery under the uninsured motorists endorsement and the existing pleadings.
We must nevertheless deny the petition, as Nationwide has not established the irreparable harm that is a requisite element of such an application. The prospect that Nationwide may be put to the expense and inconvenience of a trial does not satisfy this element. Riano v. Heritage Corp. of S. Fla., 665 So.2d 1142, 1145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Any misinterpretation or misapplication of the policy provisions in a final judgment in the case can be remedied in a plenary appeal.
Nor may we treat the trial court’s order as a judgment determining the existence or nonexistence of insurance coverage and appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(m). That provision requires an explicit ruling on coverage in a case in which a claim has been made against the insured. Here, the respondent’s claim was only asserted against the insurer, not the insured. See USAA Cas. Ins. Co. v. Jones, 946 So.2d 1127 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).
Petition denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- The Travelers Ins. Co. v. Warren, 678 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 1996)
- Clark v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 665 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- USAA Cas. Ins. Co. v. Jones, 946 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)