MARTIN WIENER, APPELLANT,
v.
AVIS RENT A CAR AND I. T. T. HAMILTON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
This interlocutory appeal challenges dismissal of a complaint alleging that Avis and I.T.T. Hamilton improperly denied uninsured motorist coverage on an auto rental insurance certificate. The court affirmed the dismissal, finding the certificate provided only accidental death and medical benefits, not liability insurance, and that the class suit allegations were insufficient.
The court affirmed dismissal, holding that the insurance certificate provided only accidental death and medical expense benefits, not automobile liability insurance, and therefore the statutory requirement for uninsured motorist coverage did not apply. The complaint also failed to allege the existence of a sufficient class or necessity for class treatment.
[1] Uninsured motorist coverage requirements under Florida law apply only to automobile liability insurance policies, not to policies providing accidental death and accident…
[2] A complaint seeking to maintain a class action must allege the existence of a class with sufficient certainty.
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“the certificate of insurance attached (which is part of the rental agreement) demonstrates quite clearly that it does not provide automobile liability insurance, but, rather, it provides coverage to the person renting the vehicle for accidental death benefits and accident medical expense benefits”
Establishes that the insurance certificate was for limited accident benefits, not liability coverage, therefore statutory uninsured motorist requirements did not apply.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWiener rented a car from Avis and purchased insurance from I.T.T. Hamilton as part of the rental agreement. The insurance certificate did not expressl…
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 Class Suit cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
This is an interlocutory appeal from an order dismissing with leave to amend appellant’s complaint which sought equitable and legal relief.
In material part the complaint in question alleges the following things. Appellant entered into an automobile rental agreement with appellee Avis Rent A Car. As a part of said agreement appellant purchased automobile liability insurance from appellee I.T.T. Hamilton Life Insurance Company, as evidenced by the certificate of insurance attached to the complaint and made a part thereof. Said certificate of insurance did not contain a specific exclusion of uninsured motorist coverage, nor was any endorsement in writing obtained from appellant rejecting said coverage. Appellant was struck from the rear by an uninsured motorist and though he presented his uninsured motorist claim to appellee Avis, it was denied. The complaint was brought by appellant as a class suit for himself and all persons similarly situated.
Upon motion of the appellees the trial court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. It appears to us the trial court was eminently correct in doing so. The cause of action asserted is based upon the allegation that appellant had purchased from appellee I.T.T. Hamilton Life Insurance Company “automobile liability insurance, as evidenced by the certificate of insurance attached hereto and made a part hereof . . .’’ But examination of the certificate of insurance attached (which is part of the rental agreement) demonstrates quite clearly that it does not provide automobile liability insurance, but, rather, it provides coverage to the person renting the vehicle for accidental death benefits and accident medical expense benefits. The complaint charges that the certificate of insurance did not contain a specific exclusion of uninsured motorist coverage nor had it been rejected in writing. This'allegation is of no import because § 627.727, F.S.1973, requiring the inclusion of uninsured motorist coverage unless rejected by the insured applies only to automobile liability insurance.
Since the appellant may choose upon remand to file an amended complaint, we deem it advisable to comment upon the propriety of the allegations of the complaint to justify a class suit in the circumstance alleged.
The complaint does not allege the existence of a class with a sufficient degree of certainty, nor that it is necessary to bring this suit as a class suit, nor that appellant’s interests arising out of his contract are coextensive with other lessees contracting with appellee Avis. These allegations are essential to the maintenance of a class suit. Harrell v. Hess Oil and Chemical Corporation, Fla.1973, 287 So. 2d 291; Port Royal, Inc., v. Conboy, Fla.App. 1963, 154 So. 2d 734. Accordingly, the complaint did not allege sufficient facts in any event to justify appellant in maintaining the action, as a class suit.
The order appealed from is affirmed.
WALDEN, C. J., and CROSS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Kendrick, 822 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…ivergent individual facts. Such cases are particularly unsuitable for class action treatment. See Humana, Inc. v. Castillo, 728 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Cordell v. World Ins. Co., 418 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Wiener v. Avis Rent A Car, 318 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). To allow class certification in this case would undermine the purpose for which this procedural vehicle was created. Based on the foregoing, we reverse the order certifying the class. Certification reversed.…
-
Sallade v. Colonial Ins. Co. of Cal., 465 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…summary judgment for appellee Colonial in August 1984. This appeal followed. Section 627.727, Florida Statutes, requires that uninsured motorist coverage be offered to anyone who' purchases automobile liability insurance. Wiener v. Avis Rent A Car, 318 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). Notwithstanding the plain meaning of its language, appellants argue that section 627.727 should now apply to PIP policies as well. Appellants point out that in 1961, when section 627.727 (originally numbered section 627.0851) w…
Authorities Cited
- Port Royal, Inc. v. Conboy, 154 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Harrell v. Hess OIL & Chem. Corp., 287 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 1973)