CARMEN MARIMON SENA ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, 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.
An insured who settles with and releases a potentially liable party in violation of the insurance policy's subrogation rights is not entitled to uninsured motorist benefits, and summary judgment for the insurer was properly entered.
An insured cannot recover uninsured motorist benefits when he settles with and releases a potentially liable party in violation of the policy's subrogation provisions.
[1] An insured forfeits uninsured motorist coverage by settling with and releasing a potentially liable party in violation of the insurance policy's subrogation provisions.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe insured entered into a settlement with and executed a release in favor of a person who may have been liable for the insured's injuries, in violati…
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 Forfeiture Of Coverage cases and more on FLexlaw
NATHAN, Judge.
The plaintiffs appeal an adverse summary final judgment in favor of the defendant.
We find the decisive issue in the case to be whether an insured is entitled to uninsured motorist benefits under his insurance policy, when he has entered into a settlement with, and executes a release in favor of a person who may be liable for the insured’s injuries, in violation of the terms of the policy including the insured’s right of subrogation. Florida cases clearly answer this question in the negative. See Oren v. General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corporation, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 581; Phoenix Insurance Company v. Bowen, Fla.App.1965, 178 So. 2d 751; American Fidelity Fire Insurance Company v. Richardson, Fla.App.1966, 189 So. 2d 486. The appellants rely on the case of Kaplan v. Phoenix of Hartford Insurance Company, Fla.App.1968, 215 So. 2d 893, to urge the proposition that summary final judgment should not be entered where it is shown that the settlement agreement has not prejudiced the insurer. However, there being no indication in the record that the issue of prejudice was brought before the trial court, this court is now unable to entertain the matter for the first time on appeal. Alliance For Conservation of Natural Resources in Pinellas County v. Furen, Fla.App.1960, 122 So. 2d 51, 65.
Therefore, for the reasons stated and upon the authorities cited, the order is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Arrieta v. Volkswagen Ins. Co. & Protective Nat'l Ins. Co., 343 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…ppers Insurance Company v. Gonzalez, 234 So. 2d 693 (Fla.3d DCA 1970). A settlement with the tortfeasor is precluded because by settling, the plaintiff may lose his uninsured motorist coverage. See Sena v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 305 So. 2d 243 (Fla.3d DCA 1974)., If a plaintiff may proceed upon his own uninsured motorist coverage before pursuing the tortfeasor, one of two possibilities arises: (1) The courts may hold that the plaintiff may recover in such uninsured motorist arbitration on…
-
United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 369 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…such settlement was ever effected. . Indeed, under a standard provision of these policies, a settlement or judgment secured without the permission of the UM insurer would effectively forfeit UM coverage entirely. Sena v. State Farm Mutual Ins. Co., 305 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). . It is also contended that she is not a “specifically named policy beneficiary,” both because she is not referred to by name in the policy, and because the “beneficiary” language in both Roberts and the statute refers to life i…
-
Edwards v. Lawyers Title Guar. Fund, 370 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Butchikas v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 343 So. 2d 816 (Fla.1977); Allstate Insurance Co. v. Gibbs, 340 So. 2d 1202, 1204 (Fla.4th DCA 1976); Sena v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 305 So. 2d 243 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); MacDonald v. Penn Mutual Life Insurance Co., 276 So. 2d 232 (Fla.2d DCA 1973); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Herrin, 230 So. 2d 709 (Fla.2d DCA 1970).…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Oren v. Gen. Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp., Ltd., 175 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Carlton Lee Fields v. State, 215 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Alliance FOR Conservation OF Natural Res. IN Pinellas Cnty. v. Furen, 122 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Am. Fid. Fire Ins. Co. v. Richardson, 189 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- The Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Bowen, 178 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)