NANCY STEPHAN, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY AND STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
The court held that the antistacking statute does not prohibit combining uninsured motorist coverage from policies with different named insureds.
Plaintiff was injured as a passenger in a car insured by U.S.F. & G. and also had four uninsured motorist policies with State Farm. State Farm denied …
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 Named Insured cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Nancy Stephan, the plaintiff below, appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. Stephan contends that the trial court erred in awarding State Farm a summary judgment under Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (1977), the antistacking statute. We agree and reverse.
Stephan was a passenger in a car owned or leased by her husband’s employer. That car was struck by an uninsured automobile resulting in injuries to Stephan. The vehicle in which Stephan was riding was insured by United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company. The U.S.F. & G. policy included uninsured motorist coverage. Stephan was also a named insured under four separate policies of insurance issued by State Farm, each of which included uninsured motorist protection. State Farm, however, declined coverage under any of the four policies contending that Section 627.4132 prohibited Stephan from “stacking” the uninsured motorist coverage of the State Farm policies upon the uninsured motorist coverage of the U.S.F. & G. policy.
In Cox v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 378 So. 2d 330 (Fla.2d DCA 1980) we held that Section 627.4132 does not apply to situations in which an injured plaintiff attempts to combine uninsured motorist coverage from two separate policies when the two policies have different named insureds. In the present case, Stephan was a named insured under all four State Farm policies; accordingly, she is entitled to recovery under only one of those four policies, assuming of course that State Farm has no other defenses to present. This coverage shall be in addition to any recovery under the U.S.F. & G. policy since Stephan was not a named insured under that policy.
The summary judgment in favor of State Farm is reversed and this case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
HOBSON, Acting C. J., and RYDER and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Johnson, 392 So. 2d 1348 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…8 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). . Day v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 388 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). . Porter v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Co., 385 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Stephan v. U. S. Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 384 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Burt v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 383 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). . The Florida Supreme Court in Dewberry v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 363 So. 2d 1077 (Fla.1978), held that the uninsured motorist statute requir…
-
Kenilworth Ins. Co. v. Drake, 396 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)…te insureds, the reasons for the rule (and thus the rule) against “stacking” vanish. Cox v. State Farm Mutual, 378 So. 2d 330, 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Stephan v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 384 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). III. Credits Against UMC. The purpose of UMC is to provide those so insured with a fund from which they can be compensated for injuries sustained in automobile accidents, just as though the tortfeasor had carried that much liab…
-
DAY v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 388 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…he contrary of the court’s view. The decision in Kokay v. South Carolina Insurance has been followed in the cases of Burt v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 383 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Stephen v. U. S. Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 384 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), and Porter v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 385 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). We adopt the holding in Kokay v. South Carolina Insurance Company. We reject the holding in McLellan v. State Farm Mutual Automobile In…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- COX v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 378 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)