LION INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, APPELLANT,
v.
GEORGIA ANNE CLARK, AN INFANT, BY HER FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, ROBERT CLARK, AND ROBERT CLARK, INDIVIDUALLY, 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.
A motor vehicle operator may recover under uninsured motorist coverage from his own insurer even when struck by a vehicle operated by someone with bodily injury liability insurance meeting Florida's financial responsibility requirements.
An insured may recover under uninsured motorist provisions despite the at-fault driver having bodily injury liability insurance meeting state financial responsibility minimums.
[1] An insured's uninsured motorist coverage is not barred merely because the at-fault driver carries bodily injury liability insurance meeting state financial responsibility…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff's vehicle was struck by a motor vehicle operated by a person who carried bodily injury liability insurance in an amount sufficient to sa…
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 Uninsured Motorist Provision cases and more on FLexlaw
BOYER, Chief Judge.
Appellant, defendant in the trial court, seeks reversal of an order of that court granting plaintiffs’ (appellees here) motion for summary judgment on the issue of coverage.
Appellant phrases the sole point on appeal as follows: A motor vehicle operator is not entitled to recover from his own insurer under the uninsured motorist provisions of his insurance policy when his vehicle was struck by a motor vehicle operated by a person who has a bodily injury liability insurance policy in an amount sufficient to satisfy the financial responsibility law of the state of Florida.
The learned trial judge held contra. We reverse.
The trial court apparently relied upon Allstate Insurance Company v. Chastain, 251 So. 2d 354 (Fla.3rd DCA 1971), cert. discg., 263 So. 2d 578 (Fla.1972), which we find to be in conflict with a prior decision of this court, Gordon v. Phoenix Insurance Company, 242 So. 2d 485 (Fla.1st DCA 1970). The dissent in the Chastain case is in line with our holding in the Gordon case. We adhere to our prior opinion. (See also Golphin v. Home Indemnity Company, 284 So. 2d 442 (Fla.1st DCA 1973) and Milling v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 333 So. 2d 511 (Fla.1st DCA 1976)).
REVERSED.
McCORD and MILLS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Chastain, 251 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Gordon v. The Phoenix Ins. Co., 242 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Chastain, 263 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 1972)
- Golphin v. The Home Indem. Co., 284 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
- Salazar v. Marques, 333 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)