HERITAGE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
REBECCA SUE CANTER, AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF ROGER CANTER, DECEASED, AND JACKY LYNN MITCHELL, 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.
Heritage Insurance Company appealed a judgment holding that its automobile liability policy's "use of other automobiles" provision covered an insured operating a motorcycle. The Second District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the term "automobile" in the policy does not include motorcycles, and therefore the insured had no coverage for the motorcycle accident.
The "use of other automobiles" provision does not cover operation of a motorcycle. The term "automobile" as used in the policy does not comprehend use of a motorcycle by the insured, and therefore no coverage was afforded under the policy.
[1] An automobile liability insurance policy's "Use of Other Automobiles" clause, which applies to "any other automobile" when the named insured owns a covered private passen…
[2] A policy's definition of "automobile" for medical payments coverage does not apply to the "Use of Other Automobiles" insuring agreement for liability 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 intelligence“the word "automobile" as used in the context of the "use of other automobile" provision before us does not comprehend use of a motorcycle by the insured”
Statement of the holding establishing that motorcycles are not covered under the policy's "use of other automobiles" provision
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJacky Lynn Mitchell was insured under an automobile liability policy issued by Heritage Insurance. On May 13, 1974, Mitchell operated a motorcycle own…
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 Insurance Policy Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Judge.
This case presents the question of whether the “use of other automobiles” provision in a liability insurance policy affords protection to an insured operating someone else’s motorcycle. The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiff/appellee Canter Estate, holding this provision furnished coverage. Defendant/appellant Heritage appeals. We reverse.
Defendant Heritage issued an automobile liability insurance policy to Jacky Lynn Mitchell. Mitchell was involved in an accident on May 13, 1974, while operating a motorcycle owned by Cecil Fields. Roger Canter, who was riding as a passenger on the motorcycle was killed in the accident. When Canter’s estate sued Mitchell, the issue of coverage was raised by Heritage. Once the trial court ruled as a matter of law that Heritage’s policy covered Mitchell, a consent judgment was entered for the policy limits of $10,000 against both Mitchell and Heritage. Heritage, which supplied counsel to Mitchell in the trial court, filed this appeal on its behalf but did not appeal on behalf of its insured.
The relevant part of the policy issued by Heritage to its insured Mitchell stipulated:
“Use of Other Automobiles. If the named insured . . owns a private passenger automobile covered by this policy, such insurance as is afforded by this policy . . . with respect to said automobile applies with respect to any other automobile . .
There is no definition of “automobile” in the policy applicable to the use of other automobiles coverage.
Recently, the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Florida, Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. Co. v. Pitzer, 330 So. 2d 499 (Fla.4th DCA 1976), considered the question now before us. There, our sister court held that under an identical policy provision, where the word “automobile” was not defined, a motorcycle was not “any other automobile” and the insured was not covered by the policy. We agree that the word “automobile” as used in the context of the “use of other automobile” provision before us does not comprehend use of a motorcycle by the insured.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is vacated as to Heritage and the trial court is directed to enter a judgment in favor of the defendant Heritage.
GRIMES, Acting C. J., and OTT, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lyndell Wayne Pitzer, 330 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)