STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
NEWTON F. WHITE, 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.
The court held that an insured can aggregate or 'stack' uninsured motorist coverage in an underinsured motorist situation, consistent with the statutory definition and established legal principles.
[1] An insurer is obligated to pay the difference between a policyholder's total uninsured motorist coverage and the liability coverage of an underinsured tortfeasor.
[2] The statutory definition of an uninsured motorist includes a driver whose liability insurance limits are less than the injured person's uninsured motorist coverage.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWhite was injured in an accident with Beasley, whose liability coverage was less than White's uninsured motorist coverage. White maintained three sepa…
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 Stacking Of Insurance Coverage cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Judge.
Appellant, State Farm, challenges the trial court’s holding which allows the appellee White to aggregate or “stack” his uninsured motorist coverage in an underin-sured motorist situation. We affirm.
White was injured in an automobile accident on May 9, 1974. Beasley, the alleged negligent motorist carried $10,000 per person automobile liability coverage. White, who maintained three separate policies with State Farm on three separate vehicles, each with $10,000 uninsured motorist coverage, sought a declaratory judgment that he could “stack” his coverage.
Fla.Stat. § 627.727, relating to uninsured motorist coverage was amended effective October 1, 1973, to provide in (2) (b) that an uninsured motorist now also includes one who maintains liability insurance, but whose insurer:
“Has provided limits of bodily injury liability for its insured which are less than the limits applicable to the injured person provided under his uninsured motorist’s coverage.”
We note that this provision, now commonly referred to as “underinsured motorist coverage,” does not restrict a policy holder to any one policy.
It is now an accepted principle of law to allow “stacking” of uninsured motorist coverage. Sellers v. Government Employees Insurance Co., Fla.App.1st 1968, 214 So. 2d 879; Tucker v. Government Employees Insurance Co., Fla.1974, 288 So. 2d 238. Since the 1973 amendment to the statute includes an underinsured motorist within the definition of an uninsured motorist, the reasoning in the cited cases appears controlling. We therefore find no logical reason White should not be permitted to stack his coverage in respect to an underinsured motorist.
Accordingly, we hold the trial court was correct in entering its declaratory judgment that State Farm was obligated to White in respect to the difference between the Beasley’s coverage of $10,000 and White’s total uninsured coverage of $30,000. In this and all other respects the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
HOBSON, Acting C. J., and GRIMES, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dewberry v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 363 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 1978)…er said date.” . Sammis v. Bennett, 32 Fla. 458, 14 So. 90 (1893). See also State ex rel. Stuart Daily News, Inc. v. Lee, 120 Fla. 858, 163 So. 135 (1935); 30 Fla.Jur., Statutes, § 147 (1974). . State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. White, 330 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Govt. Employees Ins. Co. v. Farmer, 330 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 332 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Govt. Employees Ins. Co. v. Butt, 296 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Sellers…
-
COX v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 378 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)…ss of insureds pyramids coverage to the extent of the number of vehicles on which the named insured has obtained coverage.2 Tucker v. Government Employees Insurance Co., 288 So. 2d 238 (Fla.1973); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. White, 330 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). Here, Ms. Cox seeks only to add the owner’s coverage on the vehicle she was driving to the limits of the coverage under her personal policy. The named insureds in each policy are entirely different. We reverse the judgment and r…
-
Aristonico Infante v. Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co., 364 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…ed to uninsured motorist coverage. See Tucker v. Government Employees Insurance Co., 238 So. 2d 238 (Fla.1974); Government Employ [*876] ees Insurance Co. v. Farmer, 330 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. White, 330 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). Having in essence denied uninsured motorist coverage, it cannot rely upon the In-fantes’ settlement with Lumbermen’s to avoid coverage. Cf. Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Whitaker, 218 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969); Rese…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tucker v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., 288 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 1973)
- Sellers v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., 214 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)