JUDITH GIBBONS AND PHILIP GIBBONS, APPELLANTS,
v.
DOCK SHOCKLEY ET AL., APPELLEES
PER CURIAM.
Appellants, who were the plaintiffs in the trial court, appeal a final judgment which limited their recovery against defendant, the tortfeasor’s insurance company, to the policy limit of the policy covering the automobile involved in the injury to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs claim that the stacking of liability coverage is permissible in the light of legal precedent. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Castaneda, 339 So. 2d 679 (Fla.3d DCA 1976).
We find no case or legal reasoning which would support plaintiffs’ proposition. The United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, in a cause arising in the District Court for the Middle District of Florida, considered such a contention in Greer v. Associated Indemnity Corporation, 371 F. 2d 29 (5th Cir. 1967), and arrived at the same conclusion. See also 37 A.L.R.3d 1263.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maine v. Hyde, 350 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)…d under the policy without [*1163] consideration of the automobile involved in the accident driven by the insured. We agree with the view expressed by the Third District Court of Appeal, which previously addressed this issue in Gibbons v. Shockley, 341 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). There the court said that it could find no case or legal reasoning to support the plaintiffs’ contention that they should be allowed to stack the tortfeasor’s liability coverage. The court relied upon Greer v. Associated Indemnit…
Authorities Cited
- Greer v. Associated Indem. Corp., 371 F.2d 29 (5th Cir. 1967)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Castaneda, 339 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)