SIDNEY MARCUS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, 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.
The court held that an insurance policy exclusion preventing double recovery for medical expenses, where payment was already made under uninsured motorist coverage, is valid under Florida law.
Appellant, an insured, made claims under both the uninsured motorist and medical payments provisions of their policy. The medical expenses were consid…
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 Medical Payments Coverage cases and more on FLexlaw
Upon this appeal, the plaintiff, appellant, urges that the defendant, appellee, was not entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. We affirm the judgment.
The appellant was appellee’s insured. The policy included both a medical payments provision and an uninsured motorist provision. Appellant made claim first under the uninsured motorist portion of the policy and introduced into evidence at the arbitration proceedings bills for medical expenses. The amounts represented by these bills were taken into consideration in the determination of the award received by the appellant in the arbitration proceeding. Thereafter appellant made claim under the medical payments portion of the policy. This was refused upon the ground that the policy specifically provided that in the event payment was made for medical expenses under the uninsured motorist provision, then these amounts could not be recovered a second time under the medical payments clause.
The provision of the policy that payments should not be made under medical payments provision, if payments for the same medical services had been previously paid under the uninsured motorist coverage, was a valid exclusion under the law of Florida. See Standard Accident Insurance Company v. Gavin, Fla.1967, 196 So.2d 440; Tuggle v. Government Employees Insurance Company, Fla.App.1966, 185 So.2d 487; Damsel v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Fla.App.1966, 186 So.2d 825.
We note that the District Court of Appeal, First District, in Phoenix Insurance Company v. Kincaid, Fla.App.1967, 199 So. 2d 770, in a highly persuasive opinion, has reached a conflicting decision. Nevertheless, we adhere to our precedent on the point and respectfully note the conflict.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marcus v. The Travelers Ins. Co., 210 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 1968)…Certiorari dismissed without opinion. 204 So. 2d 345.…
Authorities Cited
- Eldred L. Tuggle and Catherine Tuggle v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., 185 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- THE Florida BAR v. Harris, 196 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 1967)
- Shaw v. State, 199 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
- Damsel v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 186 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Richardson v. State, 199 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)