CONTINENTAL INSURANCE CO., A NEW YORK CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
MILTON J. WALLACE, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1970-03-10
No. 69-598
Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and SWANN, JJ.
233 So. 2d 195 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1970) Negative Treatment
Cited by 14 cases

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.

Synopsis

Continental Insurance appeals a judgment awarding Wallace $4,789 under his uninsured motorist coverage. The court reversed, holding that because the at-fault third party maintained liability insurance that paid within policy limits, the third party was not an "uninsured motorist" under Florida law, and Continental's uninsured motorist coverage never applied.


Holding

No. The court held that uninsured motorist coverage applies only when the at-fault motorist either lacks liability insurance or carries insurance that denies coverage. Since the third party maintained required liability insurance that paid without denying coverage, the third party was not an "uninsured motorist," and Continental's uninsured motorist coverage did not apply.


Headnotes

[1] Uninsured motorist coverage does not apply when the at-fault third party has liability insurance that meets the minimum requirements of state law.

[2] A third-party tortfeasor is not considered an uninsured motorist if their liability insurer makes payments within the policy limits.

Previewing 2 of 4 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

Key Quotes

“For the purposes of this coverage the term 'uninsured motor vehicle' shall, subject to the terms and conditions of such coverage, be deemed to include an insured motor vehicle where the liability insurer thereof is unable to make payment with respect to the legal liability of its insured within the limits specified therein because of insolvency.”

Establishes the statutory definition of uninsured motor vehicle, which forms the foundation for interpreting when coverage applies.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Wallace was injured in an accident caused by a third party who carried automobile liability insurance meeting Florida's minimum requirements. Wallace …

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Milton J. Wallace purchased an automobile liability insurance policy under which the ultimate coverage was provided by The Continental Insurance Company.

While this policy was in effect he was involved in a serious accident which was the fault of a third party. The third party carried automobile liability insurance within the limits as required by Florida law. See § 324.021(7) and § 324.151(1) (a), Fla.Stat., F.S.A.

Wallace recovered the policy limit of $10,000 from the third party’s insurance company and $5,211.00, all that was available, from the estate of the third party. He then gave a release to the third party without objection from Continental.

His policy with the coverage' provided by Continental contained a limit of $20,000 for protection against uninsured motorists and the other usual liability coverages. Since his damages were at least in the amount of $20,000, he made a claim against Continental for the difference between what he actually recovered from the third party ($15,211.00) and the policy limit of his uninsured motorist coverage of $20,000. They refused to pay; he sued and recovered a final judgment in the trial court for the difference of $4,789.00. Continental has appealed.

Section 627.0851(2), Fla.Stat., F.S.A., defines an uninsured vehicle:

“For the purposes of this coverage the term ‘uninsured motor vehicle’ shall, subject to the terms and conditions of such coverage, be deemed to include an insured motor vehicle where the liability insurer thereof is unable to make payment with respect to the legal liability of its insured within the limits specified therein because of insolvency.”

It has been held that this statute established the public policy of this state to be that every insured as defined in the policy is entitled to recover under his uninsured motorist policy the damages he would have been able to recover from the offending motorist if that motorist had maintained a policy of liability insurance. Harmon v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Fla.App.1969, 232 So. 2d 206, filed February 13, 1970; Travelers Indemnity Company v. Powell, Fla.App. 1968, 206 So.2d 244; and Davis v. United States Fidel. & G. Co. of Baltimore, Md., Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 485.

The terms and conditions of the uninsured coverage provided by this policy are:

“Protection Against UNINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE: The Company will pay all sums which the insured or his legal representative shall be legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured highway vehicle because of bodily injury sustained by the insured, caused by accident and arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of such uninsured highway vehicle; * * * ” (emphasis added).
“Uninsured highway vehicle” means:
(a) a highway vehicle with respect to the ownership, maintenance or use of which there is, in at least the amounts specified by the financial responsibility law of the state in which the insured automobile is principally garaged, no bodily injury liability bond or insurance policy applicable at the time of the accident with respect to any person or organization legally responsible for the use of such vehicle, or with respect to which there is a bodily injury liability bond or insurance policy applicable at the time of the acci*197dent but the company writing the same denies coverage thereunder or. * * *” (emphasis added).

Here, the third party tort-feasor had insurance in the amount that was required under Florida law. The third party not only had liability insurance but coverage was not denied by his insurance company as it paid Wallace $10,000 under the coverage and limits of its policy. Clearly, the third party was not an uninsured motorist in this case so the uninsured motorist coverage provided by Continental never came into operation.

We have considered the other points argued by the appellee for affirmance and find them to be insufficient in law. The final judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for entry of the final judgment for the insurance company.

It is so ordered.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • …. Thompson v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 250 So. 2d 259 (Fla.1971); Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. McNulty, 229 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 1969). . Harmon v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 232 So. 2d 206 (Fla.App.2d 1970); Continental Ins. Co. v. Wallace, 233 So. 2d 195 (Fla.App.3d 1970); Standard Accident Ins. Co. v. Gavin, 184 So. 2d 229 (Fla.App. 1st 1966), cert. dism’d, 196 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 1967); Davis v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 172 So. 2d 485 (Fla.App.lst 1965); Mullis v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co…
  • Turner Hodges v. Nat'l Union Indem. Co., 249 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1971)
    …hen he is injured by an uninsured motorist as “if the uninsured motorist had carried the minimum limits” of an automobile liability policy. Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Powell, supra, text 246. See also: Continental Ins. Co. v. Wallace (1970 Fla.App.) 233 So. 2d 195. Other points raised by Petitioner need . not be gone into in view of our foregoing determination. The judgment and decision of the District Court of Appeal are quashed with instruction to reinstate the judgment of the Circuit Court. CARLTON, ADK…
  • State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 332 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
    …le coverage shall also be underinsured vehicle coverage. . .” . Codified as § 627.727(2) (b) F.S. 1973. .The act is clearly designed to remedy the inequities inherent in such decisions as Continental Insurance Co. v. Wallace, Fla.App., 3 DCA 1970, 233 So. 2d 195.…

Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw