HAROLD R. GARCIA, REPRESENTATIVE FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND OF ELSA GARCIA, A MINOR, APPELLANT,
v.
ALLSTATE 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.
Garcia sought a declaratory judgment claiming he was entitled to uninsured motorist coverage equal to his bodily injury liability limits ($100,000/$300,000) under Florida law. The court affirmed dismissal of the complaint, holding that Chapter 71-88 established only a maximum limitation for uninsured motorist coverage and that Allstate's $10,000/$20,000 policy limits complied with statutory requirements.
The court held that Chapter 71-88 added only a maximum limitation to uninsured motorist coverage and does not require it to equal bodily injury liability limits. Coverage anywhere between the statutory financial responsibility minimums and the liability limits constitutes full statutory compliance. The trial court's order dismissing the complaint constituted a valid declaratory judgment.
[1] An order dismissing a complaint for declaratory relief may be treated as a declaratory judgment, even if the court's interpretation of the parties' rights is adverse to t…
[2] Florida Statute § 627.727, as amended by Chapter 71-88, Laws of Florida, permits uninsured motorist coverage limits to be set at any amount up to the bodily injury liabil…
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“In its order of dismissal, as recited above, the trial court did make a declaration of the rights of the parties. Even though the court's interpretation is adverse to the plaintiff it is nevertheless a declaration of rights.”
Establishes that the dismissal order constituted a valid declaratory judgment despite ruling against Garcia.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGarcia held an insurance policy with Allstate providing uninsured motorist coverage of $10,000 per person and $20,000 per accident, and bodily injury …
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 Florida Financial Responsibility Law cases and more on FLexlaw
NATHAN, Judge.
Plaintiff, Harold R. Garcia, representative father and next friend of Elsa Garcia, a minor, appeals from an order dismissing his complaint against defendant Allstate Insurance Company for failure to state a cause of action.
Garcia filed a complaint for a declaratory decree alleging that he had uninsured motorist coverage with Allstate, that an uninsured motorist struck his daughter, that Allstate maintains that Garcia’s uninsured motorist coverage is $10,000/$20,000 on each of his two automobiles and that Allstate offered $20,000 in settlement, which is what it claims to be the policy limit. Garcia sought to have the court determine that by virtue of Chapter 71-88, Laws of Florida, he is entitled to uninsured motorist coverage in the same limits as his bodily injury liability coverage, $100,000/$300,000 on each of his two automobiles, or a total of $200,000/$600,000. Allstate filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order dismissing the complaint on grounds that,
“ . . . said Amended Declaratory Action fails to state a cause of action and the face of the plaintiffs’ Complaint showing that the insurance policy providing uninsured motorist limits of $10,000 per person and . $20,000 per accident is not less than the requirements of the Florida Financial Responsibility Law and is in an amount up to the amount of the liability limits shown thereon and the face of the plaintiffs’ Amended Declaratory Action does thereby show that the referred to insurance policy is - in full compliance with F.S. 627.727 as amended by Chapter 71-88, Laws of Florida; and no justiciable controversy therefore exists ...”
On appeal, Garcia contends that (1) the trial court erred in dismissing the action without giving him a declaration of the amount of his uninsured motorist coverage, and (2) since he never rejected any portion of his uninsured motorist coverage, he was entitled to uninsured motorist coverage in the amount of his bodily injury liability coverage under Chapter 71-88, Laws of Florida.
As to Garcia’s first point, we treat the order granting Allstate’s motion to dismiss the complaint for declaratory relief as a declaratory judgment under § 86.011, Fla.Stat. In its order of dismissal, as recited above, the trial court did make a declaration of the rights of the parties. Even though the court s interpretation is adverse to the plaintiff it is nevertheless a declaration of rights. See Gates v. City of Jacksonville, Fla.App. 1973, 278 So. 2d 645.
As to the second point, we are of the opinion that Chapter 71-88 simply added a maximum limitation in uninsured coverage. Previously, the statute (§ 627.0851, Fla.Stat., 1969) required limits “not less than” the financial responsibility limits and was silent as to the limits that could be provided in excess of the financial responsibility limits. Then, Chapter 71-88 added “and in an amount up to” the liability limits (§ 627.727, Fla.Stat., 1971), and inserted maximum limitation. Any coverage inbe-tween the financial responsibility limits and the liability is in full compliance with the statute.
“In the interpretation of statutes, a court should be astute in avoiding a construction which may be productive of much litigation and insecurity, or which would throw the meaning or administration of the law, or the forms of business, into hopeless confusion or uncertainty.” 73 Am.Jur.2d, Statutes, § 269.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Indus. Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Kwechin, 447 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 1983)…onstructions of a statute are possible, one of which is of questionable constitutionality, the statute must be construed so as to avoid any violation of the constitution. State v. Beasley, 317 So. 2d 750 (Fla.1975); Garcia v. Allstate Insurance Co., 327 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). For the foregoing reasons, the certified question is answered in the affirmative [*1340] and the decision of the district court is approved. It is so ordered. ADKINS and McDONALD, JJ., concur. OVERTON, J., concurs with an opi…
-
Riccio v. Allstate Ins. Co., 357 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…, pursuant to the above statute, “full coverage” under the law is any amount of uninsured motorist coverage between the financial responsibility limits ($10,000/$20,000) and the bodily injury liability coverage. Garcia v. Allstate Insurance Company, 327 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. den. 345 So. 2d 422 (Fla.1977); but see Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Company v. Beaver, 355 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), opinion filed February 14, 1978.2 Notwithstanding appellee’s contention, the record reflects that a…
-
Quarles v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 533 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…and Georgia American. REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings. SHARP, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur. . We treat the dismissal of the amended complaint as a declaration of the rights of the parties. See Garcia v. Allstate Insurance Company, 327 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). . The issue regarding homeowner's coverage is not involved in this appeal. . See, e.g., Criterion Insurance Company v. Veit-house, 751 P. 2d 1 (Alaska 1986); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Smith, 107 Idaho 67…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gates v. City OF Jacksonville, 278 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)