STEVEN C. LANGE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO. 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.
An automobile accident victim sought declaratory relief against his own insurance carrier, claiming ambiguity about whether he could recover for damages under both the driver's liability policy and his own uninsured motorist coverage. The court affirmed dismissal, holding that no justiciable dispute existed because the driver carried the statutory minimum liability coverage and thus was not an "uninsured motorist" under the plaintiff's policy.
The trial court properly dismissed the complaint because there was no bona fide, justiciable dispute warranting declaratory relief. The driver, having the statutory minimum liability coverage, cannot be considered an uninsured motorist; and uninsured motorist coverage need not be stated in a certificate and is not required to equal the liability limits of the selected plan.
[1] A claim for declaratory relief requires a bona fide dispute as to a present justiciable issue.
[2] A certificate of insurance is not required to state the limits of uninsured motorist 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“There is no bona fide dispute as to a present justiciable issue so as to afford appellant grounds for declaratory relief.”
The court's core holding that the complaint failed to state a proper basis for declaratory relief.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was a passenger in a vehicle whose driver carried liability insurance equal in amount to appellant's uninsured motorist coverage ($10,000/$2…
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 Certificate Of Insurance cases and more on FLexlaw
JOHNSON, Judge.
Appellant, an automobile accident victim, seeks reversal of an order dismissing with prejudice that portion of his third amended complaint which sought declaratory and other relief against his own insurance carrier. The driver of the vehicle in which appellant was a passenger carried liability insurance in the same amount as appellant’s uninsured motorist coverage. It was alleged in that portion of the complaint against appellant’s own insurance carrier that the driver did not carry sufficient liability insurance to compensate appellant for his damages and appellant alleged doubts as to whether he could collect under both the driver’s policy and his own policy by claiming that the driver was an uninsured or underinsured motorist. Appellant further alleged doubt as to the extent of coverage permitted by Florida Statutes § 627-727 and as to his rights under an insurance certificate which did not specify the limits of liability for uninsured motorist coverage, while the policy itself set said limit at $10,000.00/$20,000.00. The trial court dismissed with prejudice that portion of the complaint against appellant’s insurer for the reason that there was no possibility of construction of the certificate of insurance which would suggest the existence of any underinsured motorist coverage.
After hearing oral argument in this cause and carefully examining the record on appeal and the briefs submitted by counsel for the parties, we conclude that the trial court was correct in dismissing the portion of the complaint against the appellant’s own insurance carrier. There is no bona fide dispute as to a present justiciable issue so as to afford appellant grounds for declaratory relief.
There is nothing which requires a certificate of insurance to state the limits of uninsured motorist coverage. Nor is there any reason to believe that the uninsured motorist coverage, which the certificate states to be included in each plan, would equal the limit of liability under the plan selected by an insured. Since the driver was insured for the minimum required by law at the time of the accident, he can not be considered an uninsured motorist under appellant’s policy. See Golphin v. Home Indemnity Company, 284 So. 2d 442 (Fla.App. 1st, 1973). We note in passing that appellant’s “doubts” regarding the concept of underinsurance protection, which did not become effective until after the date of the accident herein (Laws of Florida, Ch. 73-180), is irrelevant for the reason that the uninsured motorist coverage provided under appellant’s policy is exactly for the same amount as the liability coverage carried by the driver. See Government Employees Insurance Company v. Butt, 296 So. 2d 599 (Fla.App. 3rd, 1974).
For the reasons herein stated, appellant was not entitled to declaratory relief and the trial court’s order dismissing that portion of the third amended complaint is Affirmed.
The appellant’s motion for attorney’s fees is denied.
Affirmed.
RAWLS, C. J., and McCORD, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Azalene Summers and D. S. Summers v. Jackson, 307 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…ty coverage limits of the tortfeasor’s policy. On the date of this accident appellants’ uninsured motorist coverage was not involved because the tortfeasor was not an uninsured motorist. Lange v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Fla.App. 1974, 300 So. 2d 68. Finally, appellants’ reliance upon § 627.727(1), F.S.1971, to the effect that the coverage provided under that section shall [*237] be excess over but shall not duplicate other benefits such as any automobile liability coverage is misplaced. We co…
-
Durland v. Allstate Ins. Co., 344 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. Ragle v. Firemen’s Fund Ins. Co., 336 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Lange v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 300 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Summers v. Jackson, 307 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); American Fire & Cas. Co. v. Dawson, 320 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). RAWLS, Acting G. J., and McCORD and SMITH, JJ., concur.…
-
Ragle v. Firemen's Fund INS. Co., 336 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. Summers v. Jackson, 307 So. 2d 235 (Fla.App. 4th, 1975); Lange v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 300 So. 2d 68 (Fla.App. 1st, 1974); Golphin v. The Home Indem. Co., 284 So. 2d 442 (Fla.App. 1st, 1973). BOYER, C. J., and McCORD and SMITH, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Merlin E. Butt, 296 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Golphin v. The Home Indem. Co., 284 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)