OLLIE WEATHERILT AND ILLEEN WEATHERILT, APPELLANTS,
v.
HARRY VANALSTINE 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.
Beach Taxi Car Rental leased a vehicle to Vanalstine under an agreement stating that the renter bore primary liability and Beach Taxi's liability was secondary/excess only. When an accident occurred, the settlement was partially paid by Vanalstine's insurer ($31,000) and Beach Taxi's insurer ($10,000). Vanalstine cross-claimed for the full $31,000, alleging Beach Taxi misrepresented its insurance coverage limits. The court held that Beach Taxi's liability was limited to excess coverage over Vanalstine's own insurance, and reversed the summary judgment because Vanalstine's actual coverage limits were not established.
Beach Taxi's liability is limited to excess coverage only—amounts exceeding Vanalstine's own liability insurance limits. A summary judgment awarding damages to Vanalstine was error because the record did not establish the limits of Vanalstine's liability coverage, which is essential to determining any excess liability.
[1] A rental agreement provision stating that a rental company's liability shall be secondary or excess in nature only, with primary liability resting on the renter, is clear…
[2] Damages for misrepresentation regarding insurance coverage are limited to an amount exceeding the limits of the injured party's own liability coverage.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“In the event of an accident involving any party in the operation of this vehicle, then in the event of liability for such act, the primary liability shall be that of the Renter . . . and any liability of Beach Taxi Car Rental Co. shall be secondary or excess in nature only.”
Establishes the contractual language limiting Beach Taxi's liability to excess coverage only
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVanalstine leased a car from Beach Taxi under a rental agreement specifying that the renter bore primary liability and Beach Taxi's liability was seco…
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 Excess Insurance cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellee Vanalstine leased a car from appellants, owners of Beach Taxi Car Rental Co. With regard to respective liability in the event of an accident involving the leased vehicle while the rental agreement was in force said agreement provided in pertinent part as follows:
“ . . . In the event of an accident involving any party in the operation of this vehicle, then in the event of liability for such act, the primary liability shall be that of the Renter . . . and any liability of Beach Taxi Car Rental Co. shall be secondary or excess in nature only. All primary liability, investigation, defense of claims and other necessary costs shall be that of the Renter.” (Emphasis supplied)
The agreement also indicated or represented that Beach Taxi owned $100,000.00-$300,000.00 liability insurance coverage.
Vanalstine subsequently had an accident resulting in the instant suit. The suit was settled as to the plaintiff for $41,000, $31,000 of which was paid by Van-alstine’s liability carrier and $10,000 of which was paid by appellants’ carrier. Vanalstine and his carrier now cross-claim against appellants for the full $31,000 paid on the settlement because, they say, Beach Taxi misrepresented its liability coverage. As noted, the rental agreement indicated Beach Taxi had $100,000.00-$300,000.00 coverage but in truth and in fact Beach Taxi had only $10,000.00-$20,000.00 liability coverage. Appellants admit coverage to this lesser extent but contend, notwithstanding, that their liability is secondary only and is limited to excess liability over and above any coverage owned and/or purchased by Vanalstine. We agree. The above-quoted provision of the rental agreement means, clearly and unequivocally, precisely that.1
It follows, therefore, assuming actionable misrepresentation, that any damages suffered by Vanalstine or his carrier are limited to an amount over and above the limits of Vanalstine’s liability coverage. The record is absolutely silent as to such coverage even though, as noted, he and his *290carrier assumed $31,000 of the total settlement with plaintiff. Indeed, if this is probative of anything it tends to prove that Vanalstine was covered at least to that extent. Moreover, the amount of Vanalstine’s coverage is not even pleaded in his cross-claim. A summary judgment for any amount in favor of Vanalstine would therefore be without basis in the record.
Accordingly, the liability of appellants (Beach Taxi Car Rental Co.) being limited to an amount in excess of the limits of liability coverage of Vanalstine, and no such limits of Vanalstine’s coverage having been pleaded or shown, the summary judgment as entered was error. Such judgment is reversed, therefore, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings to determine the amount of Vanalstine’s liability coverage in force and effect at the time of the accident. Upon failure of Vanalstine either to plead or establish such coverage as being less than the amount of his stipulated liability summary judgment should be entered in favor of appellants, their liability being predicated on excess only as we have hereinabove held.
Reversed and remanded.
LILES, A. C. J., and MANN, J., concur.