HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
LYDA L. MASON, 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 attempted exclusion of uninsured motorist coverage for certain vehicles is void and that a five-year statute of limitations applies to wrongful death actions occasioned by an uninsured motorist.
This appeal concerns an insurance policy and a wrongful death action arising from an uninsured motorist incident. The trial court ruled on two issues:…
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 Coverage cases and more on FLexlaw
Two principal points are preserved for review on this appeal. First, whether uninsured motorist coverage may be excluded under an insurance policy as to certain vehicles and, second, whether an action to recover for wrongful death, occasioned by an uninsured motorist, is governed by the two-year statute of limitations or the five-year statute of limitations.
The trial judge held, in effect, that a partial exclusion of coverage as to certain vehicles was void and that the five-year statute applied. We affirm. As to the attempted exclusion, see: Sellers v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, Fla.1966, 185 So.2d 689; Travelers Indemnity Company v. Powell, Fla.App.1968, 206 So.2d 244; Butts v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., Fla.App.1968, 207 So.2d 73; Lumbermen’s Mutual Insurance Company v. Seaton, Fla.App.1968, 207 So.2d 733; Forbes v. Allstate Insurance Company, Fla.App.1968, 210 So. 2d 244.
As to the statute of limitations, we hold that the five-year period would be applicable under § 95.11(3), Fla.Stat., F.S. A. Without the policy there would be no claim against the company, and it is apparent that the limitation applicable should be that pertaining to written agreements. See: Booth v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, La.App.1967, 197 So.2d 352; DeLuca v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp., 17 N.Y.2d 76, 268 N.Y.S.2d 289, 215 N.E.2d 482; Schleif v. Hardware Dealer’s Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 1966, 218 Tenn. 489, 404 S.W.2d 490; 14 U. of Florida L.Rev. 455, 471; 48 Calif.L.Rev. 531; 24 Ohio L.J. 591.
Therefore, the final judgment here under review is hereby affirmed.
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)…m uninsured motorist protection while he occupies a public conveyance (taxicab) and is injured by an uninsured motorist to be void. The Third District Court, one week after its Forbes decision, in Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. v. Mason, 1968, 210 So. 2d 474, held that partial exclusion of uninsured motorist coverage of insured with respect to certain vehicles is void. The Second District Court of Appeal, on the same day Forbes was decided, held in First National Insurance Company v. Devine, 211 So. 2d…
-
Turner Hodges v. Nat'l Union Indem. Co., 249 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1971)…nsurance 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 Casualty Co., Fla.App. 1968, 207 So. 2d 312; Prudential Life Insurance Co. v. Boyce, Fla.App.1970, 234 So. 2d 704; and Martin v. Nationwide Mut. Fire…
-
Curtin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 449 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…have been uniformly rejected or denied by the courts. See Hines; Boulnois v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 286 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973), cert. denied, 294 So. 2d 658 (Fla.1974); Hartford Accident & Indemnty Company v. Mason, 210 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). The only break in the phalanx of cases requiring that uninsured motorist coverage parallel the theoretical liability coverage of the uninsured motorist has been the family member and fellow employee exclusions in cases involving…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sellers v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 185 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 1966)
- Butts v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. & Reserve Ins. Co., 207 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- The Travelers Indem. Co. v. Powell, 206 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)
- The Lumbermen's Mut. Ins. Co. v. Seaton, 207 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- The Prudential Ins. Co. OF Am. v. Latham, 207 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Forbes v. Allstate Ins. Co., 210 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- DeGROOT v. Fuller, 210 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)