MICHAELINE K. ROSEN, AS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF KIM ROSEN, A MINOR, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA AND STEVE TOKARSKI, 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.
Michaeline Rosen, as mother of a deceased minor, sued to recover damages from a car accident and sought to garnish insurance proceeds from National Union Fire Insurance Company. The court affirmed summary judgment for National, holding that the insurance policy covered only automobiles owned by the named insured partnership, not an individually-owned car driven by the insured's daughter.
The policy provided no coverage for the individually-owned automobile. The policy language clearly limited coverage to automobiles owned by or in charge of the named insured (the partnership), and the individual car did not meet this requirement.
[1] An insurance policy's coverage for the "automobile hazard" is limited to automobiles owned by or in the charge of the "named insured" as defined in the policy.
[2] An insurance policy's definition of "named insured" as a partnership precludes coverage for an automobile owned by an individual partner, even if that partner is also par…
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“It appears to us that no ambiguity is created by this language because in every instance it refers to 'the named insured' and the specific language of the policy shows 'the named insured' to be Frank Martin and Steve Tokarski d/b/a Market Truck Stop and that the named insured was a partnership.”
Establishes the court's reasoning that the policy unambiguously limited coverage to the named partnership entity.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSteve Tokarski owned a car individually that was driven by his daughter when it was involved in an accident. Tokarski also was part of a partnership (…
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 Policy Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
Michaeline Rosen sued Steve Tokarski and recovered final judgments in four actions which had been consolidated. The four actions all involved the negligent operation of a car owned by Tokarski, individually, but which was driven by his daughter at the time of the accident. To-karski had insurance on this car and the insurer paid its full limits to the plaintiff.
Plaintiff, Rosen, then brought four garnishment proceedings against National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, hereafter referred to as “National”.
National had issued an automobile liability policy which provided generally for “garage insurance” and which stated in various and relevant parts:
“Item 1. Named insured and address: Frank Martin and Steve Tokarski d/b/a Market Truck Stop, 1205 22 Street, Miami, Florida.
* * * * * *
“The named insured is: X Partnership. Business of the named insured is Auto Service Station.
* * * * * *
“Schedule
*702Item 1. The insurance afforded is only with respect to such of the following coverages and hazards thereunder as are indicated by specific premium charge or charges * * * ”
The trial court determined that National’s policy did not provide any insurance coverage for the individual car owned by Tokarski and entered summary judgments for the garnishee, National.
On appeal it is argued that there is an ambiguity created by the following terms within the policy.
“IV. Persons Insured:
* * * * * *
“ * * * [W] ith respect to the automobile hazard: (a) any person while using, with the permission of the named insured, any automobile to which the insurance applies under the automobile hazard, provided his actual operation or (if he is not operating) his other actual use thereof is within the scope of such permission, * * * "
* * * * * *
“VII Additional Definitions
******
“ ‘automobile hazard’ means that one of the following hazards for which insurance is afforded as indicated in the schedule:
“Automobile Hazard 1:
“(1) The ownership, maintenance or use (including loading and unloading) of any automobile for the purpose of garage operations, and (2) the occasional use for other business purposes and the use for non-business purposes of any automobile owned by or in charge of the named insured and used principally in garage operations, and (3) the ownership, maintenance or use of any automobile owned by the named insured while furnished for the use of any person.” (Italics added)
* * * * * *
It appears to us that no ambiguity is created by this language because in every instance it refers to “the named insured” and the specific language of the policy shows “the named insured” to be Frank Martin and Steve Tokarski d/b/a Market Truck Stop and that the named insured was a partnership.
The automobile being driven by the daughter of Tokarski was owned by Steve Tokarski, individually. It was not owned or operated with the permission of “the named insured” under the policy to wit: Frank Martin and Steve Tokarski d/b/a Market Truck Stop. Cf. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Friday, La. App.1967, 201 So.2d 3. We find no ambiguity. The judgments herein appealed are
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Bartoszewicz, 404 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 1981)…329, 333 (Fla.1956). .Although not material to our holding, we note that the PIP policy was merely part of a comprehensive business owner’s policy which included liability and property loss protection. . See Rosen v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 249 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971).…
-
Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Fike, 304 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…al as well as the partnership.2 [*138] We are not persuaded by the defendant’s suggestion that this determination would be contrary to the recent decision of our sister court in Rosen v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., Fla.App.1971, 249 So. 2d 701. The facts in the Rosen case are sufficiently distinguishable as to render that decision inapplicable.3 Additionally without merit is the contention that the absence of a premium charge for no-fault coverage would preclude no-fault benefits herein.…
-
Musselwhite v. Fla. Farm Gen. Ins. Co. & Fla. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 273 So. 3d 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)