PAUL CHAPPELEAR AND HIS WIFE, IRENE CHAPPELEAR, APPELLANTS,
v.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
A single insurance policy covering multiple vehicles does not create separate aggregate limits for personal injury protection benefits for each vehicle.
The plaintiff, an insured under a single Allstate policy covering two vehicles, was injured while driving one of them. The policy had an aggregate lim…
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 Automobile Insurance cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Judge.
Plaintiff appeals from a circuit court judgment dismissing his action against Allstate for automobile personal injury protection benefits exceeding $5,000. Appellant was named insured of a single Allstate policy covering appellant’s two automobiles, one of which appellant was driving when injured in an accident.
Section 627.736(2), Florida Statutes (1975) provides, in respect to personal injury protection benefits, that an insurer may exclude such benefits
“(a) For injury sustained by the named insured . . . while occupying another motor vehicle owned by the named insured and not insured under the policy
Appellant’s Allstate policy provides:
“Regardless of the number of persons insured, policies or bonds applicable, vehicles involved or claims made, the total aggregate limit of personal injury protection benefits available under the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act from all sources combined, including this policy, for all loss and expense incurred by or on behalf of any one person who sustains bodily injury as the result of any one accident shall be [aggregate total $5,000 each person].”
Had appellant’s two automobiles been insured by separate Allstate policies, the exclusion would unquestionably limit appellant to $5,000 in personal injury protection benefits, as prescribed by Section 627.736. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Castaneda, 339 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). A different result is not required by the circumstance that Allstate here issued a single policy insuring both vehicles. Appellant’s argument that the single policy is in effect two policies, thus generating the possibility of two $5,000 insurance funds, is self-defeating. If the policy is thus regarded as two, the statutory exclusion has unambiguous effect. If the policy is but one, there is but one $5,000 benefit.
AFFIRMED.
RAWLS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Kilbreath, 362 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)…limitation of $5,000.00 on personal injury protection benefits, notwithstanding the number of automobiles insured or policies issued. Travelers Indemnity Company v. Wolfson, 348 So. 2d 661 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Chappelear v. Allstate Insurance Company, 347 So. 2d 477 (Fla.1st DCA 1977); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Castaneda, 339 So. 2d 679 (Fla.3d DCA 1976). Rule 4-27.06 was promulgated by the Florida Department of Insurance pursuant to the mandate contained in § 627.-741(1), Florida Statu…
Authorities Cited
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Castaneda, 339 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)