UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY, A MARYLAND CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
FRED CURRY, JR., AND FIDELITY & CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, 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.
U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Company appeals a declaratory judgment allowing an employee to stack uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits from both his personal auto policy and his employer's commercial policy. The court affirms, holding that an insured protected by multiple uninsured motorist policies through occupying a vehicle is entitled to recover under all such policies.
Yes. An insured protected by more than one policy of uninsured motorist insurance, whether as a named insured or as a beneficiary of an owner's policy by virtue of occupying the vehicle at the time of the accident, is entitled to recover under all such policies to the extent of bodily injury caused by an underinsured motorist, subject to offset by amounts recovered from the tortfeasor's liability coverage.
[1] An insured injured by an underinsured motorist is entitled to recover under all applicable uninsured motorist policies, even if not a named insured or household member of…
[2] An employee operating a vehicle owned by a third-party lessor, and injured by an underinsured motorist, may stack uninsured motorist benefits from the lessor's policy.
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“an insured, like Curry in the instant cause protected by more than one policy of uninsured motorist insurance (by virtue of he or she being a beneficiary of the owner's policy by having occupied the vehicle at the time of the accident), was entitled to recover under all such policies to the extent of his or her bodily injury by an uninsured motorist”
Establishes the core holding that occupying a vehicle qualifies one as a beneficiary eligible to stack uninsured motorist coverage
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFred Curry, Jr., an employee of Grand Union Stores, was injured in an automobile accident while operating a vehicle owned by A-1 Truck & Trailer Renta…
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 Household Exclusion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff insurer, United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company (U.S.F.&G.), appeals a final declaratory judgment permitting defendant Fred Curry, Jr. to stack $15,000 in uninsured motorist benefits provided for in the liability policy issued by U.S.F.&G. to Curry’s employer. The following facts are undisputed.
Defendant Curry was an employee of Grand Union Stores, Inc. to which A 1 Truck & Trailer Rentals, Inc. (A-1) supplied vehicles for business use.
On April 1, 1976 Curry, while in the course of his employment and while operating a vehicle owned by A-l, was involved in an automobile accident with Neysa Walsh. The accident occurred as a result of her negligence. Walsh was insured under a policy with liability limits of $30,000. Because of liability payments to other claimants, only $11,000 in liability coverage was available to Curry. Curry was insured under a personal automobile liability insurance policy with limits of $15/30,000 issued by Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York. U.S.F.&G. issued a policy to A-l which provided uninsured motorist coverage in the amount of $15/30,000. Curry made a demand for arbitration against U.S.F.&G. with regard to the $15,-000 uninsured motorist provision as an underinsured pursuant to Section 627.726, Florida Statutes (1975).
Thereupon, U.S. F.&G. filed the instant complaint for declaratory judgment against Curry and his personal insurer, Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, and sought a determination that the uninsured motorist benefits issued by it to A-l were not applicable to any loss sustained by Curry. After a trial, the court entered judgment finding that Curry is entitled to stack the uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits provided by both Fidelity & Casualty Company and U.S.F.&G. (to be set off by the $11,000 settlement from Walsh’s carrier).
U.S. F.&G. appeals therefrom.
U.S.F.&G. on appeal claims error in the trial court’s determination and in support thereof cites to Government Emp. Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 342 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) which holds that a person who is a named insured under a policy (or a member of the same household of the named insured) may stack; but a person who is not related to the policyholder and is a beneficiary of the owner’s policy, by having occupied the vehicle at the time of the accident, is not permitted to stack the uninsured motorist coverage of the owner.
We reject the holding of this case because our Supreme Court in Sellers v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 185 So. 2d 689 (Fla.1966) and Allstate Insurance Co. v. Dairyland Insurance Co., 271 So. 2d 457 (Fla.1972) held that an insured, like Curry in the instant cause protected by more than one policy of uninsured motorist insurance (by virtue of he or she being a beneficiary of the owner’s policy by having occupied the vehicle at the time of the accident), was entitled to recover under all such policies to the extent of his or her bodily injury by an uninsured motorist. This holding was again reiterated and approved in Tucker v. Government Employees Insurance Company, 288 So. 2d 238 (Fla.1974).
Accordingly, the declaratory judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Ivey v. Chicago Ins. Co., 410 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 1982)…on of the District Court of Appeal, First District, (Ivey v. Chicago Insurance Co., 372 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)), which allegedly conflicts with another district court of appeal decision, (United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company v. Curry, 371 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)), on the same point of law. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.Const. (1972). Petitioner, Carolyn Ivey (hereinafter petitioner), was a passenger on a motorcycle, owned and operated by William Vereeke, which was involved…1 / 2
-
COX v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 378 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)…2d 638 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Recently two other district courts of appeal have rendered decisions contrary to the Taylor holding. Lezcano v. Leatherby Insurance Co., 372 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Curry, 371 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). In Curry the claimant received injuries while driving his employer’s vehicle. Only $11,000 was available under the liability coverage of the other vehicle. The court held that the claimant was entitled to coverage which equalled…
-
Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Johnson, 392 So. 2d 1348 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…erage under different policies.4 Before passage of the anti -stacking statute, Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (1976), this second type of stacking was generally recognized and held to be proper. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Curry, 371 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Lezcano v. Leatherby Insurance Co., 372 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). Contra, Government Emp. Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 342 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Appellant claims that the anti-stacking statute applies and prohibits the st…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sellers v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 185 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 1966)
- Tucker v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., 288 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 1973)
- Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. & Travelers Indem. Co. v. Clem Taylor, 342 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 271 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 1972)