NATIONAL SERVICE FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
LENORA BARR MIKELL, AND MORTON R. GOUDISS, ADMINISTRATOR AD LITEM, 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.
This case involves an insurance company appealing a lower court's ruling that found coverage under an uninsured motorist policy. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the insurer failed to prove the accident fell under an exclusion clause.
Yes, the uninsured motorist provision covers the accident. The insurer failed to meet its burden of proving that the decedent was injured while engaged in the "maintenance, or use" of a non-covered automobile, thus the exclusion clause did not apply.
“The insurance company did not carry its burden of proving that the decedent was injured while engaged in the “maintenance, or use” of an automobile not covered under plaintiff’s policy.”
This quote establishes the core of the court's reasoning for finding coverage, emphasizing the insurer's failure to meet its burden of proof regarding the exclusion clause.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn uninsured motorist caused an explosion at a gas station, fatally burning the plaintiff's husband. The husband was waiting for his car to be refuele…
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 Uninsured Motorist Provision cases and more on FLexlaw
An uninsured motorist crashed into the gasoline pumps in a filling station, causing them to explode. A resultant fire fatally burned the plaintiff’s husband, who was standing and talking to the gas station attendant while waiting for his car to be "gassed.” Shortly before, the decedent had driven into the station in a car owned by him, but not designated as an insured vehicle in the automobile liability policy issued to the plaintiff-wife by the defendant-insurer.
The plaintiff sought recovery under the uninsured motorist provision of her policy, but the insurer declined liability on the grounds that the accident arose from the ownership, maintenance or use of the non-designated vehicle owned by plaintiff’s husband, and he was consequently not covered because of a specific exemption clause in the policy pertaining to accidents involving such vehicles.
The trial judge entered an interlocutory order determining coverage and limiting issues, in which he specifically found that the equities were with the plaintiff and that the plaintiff’s policy insured the decedent at the time of the accident. It is from this order that the insurer has taken this interlocutory appeal.
This court appreciates the ingenuity of the appellant’s argument that although the decedent had been merely standing and talking to the gas station attendant, the accident, nevertheless, arose from the operation of a non-designated automobile owned by a member of her household; however, we are impersuaded.
The insurance company did not carry its burden of proving that the decedent was injured while engaged in the “maintenance, or use” of an automobile not covered under plaintiff’s policy.
Parenthetically, it would appear that provision V of the main insuring agreements, which the appellant has relied upon, has been rendered inapplicable by Condition 1 of the Uninsured Motorist Endorsement.
Appellant has not clearly demonstrated reversible error committed by the chancellor below, in either his findings of facts or rulings on the law.
Accordingly, the interlocutory order is hereby
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mullis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 252 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 1971)…are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles * * ” (Emphasis supplied.) Other Florida cases have held likewise. For example, in National Service Fire Insurance Company v. Mikell, Fla.App.1967, [*235] 204 So. 2d 343, the District Court of Appeal, Third District, held that a wife could recover for the death of her husband under her uninsured motorist coverage when her husband was killed at a service station standing next to his automobile which was not an insure…
-
Turner Hodges v. Nat'l Union Indem. Co., 249 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1971)…Guaranty Co., Fla.1966, 185 So. 2d 689; Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Powell, Fla.App.1968, 206 So. 2d 244; Butts v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., Fla.App. 1968, 207 So. 2d 73; National Service Fire Insurance Co. v. Mikell, Fla.App. 1967, 204 So. 2d 343; Forbes v. Allstate Insurance Company, Fla.App.1968, 210 So. 2d 244; Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. v. Mason, Fla.App.1968, 210 So. 2d 474; American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Williams, Fla.App.1969, 226 So. 2d 141; Valdes v. Prudence Mutual Casual…
-
Se. Title & Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 231 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 1970)…ile Insurance Company (Fla.App.1968), 207 So. 2d 73; Forbes v. Allstate Insurance Company (Fla.App.1968), 210 So. 2d 244; Travelers Indemnity v. Powell (Fla.App.1968), 206 So. 2d 244; National Service Fire Insurance Company v. Mikell (Fla.App.1968), 204 So. 2d 343, and Sellers v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. (Fla.), 185 So. 2d 689. Pursuant to Section 627.0851(1), any insured named in an automobile liability insurance policy may reject in toto the offered uninsured motorist coverage. But such named…