CENTRAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, A MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT,
v.
MIGUEL ESPINA, ESTHER ESPINA, GERMAINE TORAN ET AL., 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.
Central Mutual Insurance Company appealed a trial court order dismissing its declaratory relief action regarding whether an insured's injury involved an uninsured motorist under its policy. The court affirmed, holding that the liability carriers' denial of coverage qualified the accident as involving an uninsured motorist, allowing the widow's arbitration claim to proceed.
The trial court's dismissal was affirmed. The liability carriers' denial of coverage met the policy definition of an uninsured automobile, thereby activating Central Mutual's uninsured motorist coverage. Germaine Toran was permitted to prosecute her arbitration claim, with Central Mutual retaining subrogation rights against the third-party carriers.
“with respect to which there is a bodily injury liability bond or insurance policy applicable at the time of the accident but the company writing the same denies coverage thereunder”
Definition of uninsured automobile in Central Mutual's policy that was at issue in determining coverage eligibility
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlfonso T. Toran was injured in an automobile accident. His widow and executrix, Germaine Toran, filed an uninsured motorist claim in arbitration agai…
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 Denial Of Coverage cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal seeks review of a final order dismissing an action for declaratory relief, *145pursuant to the provisions of Ch. 87, Fla. Stat., F.S.A.
The appellant sought to have certain rights adjudicated under the provisions of an insurance policy issued by it to the appellee, Alfonso T. Toran. In particular, it related to the question of whether or not its insured sustained an injury by an uninsured automobile which was defined, among other things, as one “with respect to which there is a bodily injury liability bond or insurance policy applicable at the time of the accident but the company writing the same denies coverage thereunder * * * The appellees, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, may or may not have had liability insurance which would have covered the accident involved.
The appellee, Germaine Toran, as the widow and executrix of the estate of Alfonso T. Toran, filed an uninsured motorist claim in arbitration against the appellant, which prompted the instant action in the trial court. Among other things, the suit sought to have adjudicated whether or not the liability carriers of the appellees, Miguel Espina and Esther Es-pina, had properly denied coverage.
We affirm the action of the trial judge under the opinion of the Supreme Court of Florida in Columbia Casualty Co. v. Zimmerman, Fla.1952, 62 So.2d 338, and this court’s opinion in State Farm Mutual Ins. Co. v. Couch, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 786.
It is apparent from the record that the Espinas carriers either contended that their policies were not applicable to the accident or that they denied coverage. Therefore, the plain provisions of the appellant’s policy, quoted above, met the test to activate the uninsured motorist provision of the appellant’s policy. Germaine Toran should be permitted to prosecute her arbitration. Of course,- in the event the appellant is required to pay any claim in those proceedings, it will be subrogated to the rights of the claimant,1 and this proceeding should not be construed as preventing any further action on its subrogation rights against the appellees, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company.
Therefore, the order here under review is hereby affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Mellinger, 328 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed upon authority of Central Mutual Insurance Company v. Espina, Fla. App.1968, 208 So. 2d 144; see also Columbia Casualty Co. v. Zimmerman, Fla.1952, 62 So. 2d 338.…
-
Cent. Mut. Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 247 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…HENDRY, Judge. This appeal deals with subrogation rights under an uninsured motorist provision in an automobile liability insurance policy. The parties have been before this court in Central Mutual Insurance Company v. Espina, Fla.App.1968, 208 So. 2d 144. Central Mutual Insurance Company (“Central Mutual”) instituted suit as plaintiff to recover from appellees, defendants below, the amount of an arbitration award, arbitration expenses, fees, costs and subsequent expenses in prosecuting the suit bel…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Columbia Cas. Co. v. Zimmerman, 62 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 1952)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Couch, 167 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)