PREFERRED RISK MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
SHERYL WARD JACKSON, ROY WADE JACKSON, EDDIE JACKSON, DANITA L. SPARKMAN, ALAN LEROY BIRT, SUSAN BEDELL, RICHARD HALL, AND RONNIE JONES, A MINOR, 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.
Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Company appealed a trial court order invalidating an insurance policy exclusion for damage resulting from farm machinery operation. The appellate court reversed, holding that the exclusion was clear, unambiguous, and consistent with Florida statutory law.
The court held that the policy exclusion is valid and enforceable because it clearly and unambiguously excludes coverage for the damage, and because Chapter 324 of Florida Statutes expressly excludes farm tractors from the definition of motor vehicles, making the exclusion consistent with legislative intent and public policy.
[1] An insurance policy exclusion for damage resulting from the operation of farm machinery does not violate Florida's legislative intent or public policy.
[2] Farm tractors are expressly excluded from the definition of "motor vehicles" under Florida Statutes Section 324.021(1).
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 trial court erred in finding the exclusionary language invalid. The policy clearly and unambiguously excludes from coverage the damage to Eddie Jackson's tractor.”
Establishes the court's holding that the policy exclusion is valid and must be enforced according to its plain language.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSheryl Jackson held an automobile liability insurance policy issued by Preferred Risk that explicitly excluded coverage for bodily injury or property …
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 Exclusion cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, Judge.
Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Company (Preferred Risk) appeals a final order finding that enforcement of an insurance policy clause excluding coverage for damage resulting from the operation of farm machinery would violate the legislative intent of Chapter 324, Florida Statutes and the public policy of Florida. We agree this finding is incorrect and reverse.
Appellee Sheryl Jackson was the named insured under an automobile liability insurance policy issued by Preferred Risk. This policy specifically excluded coverage for “bodily injury to others or damage to any property resulting from the operation of farm machinery.” Appellee Roy Jackson, Sheryl’s husband, was involved in a collision with an automobile while operating a farm tractor, owned by appellee Eddie Jackson, on a public road. Eddie Jackson made a demand upon Preferred Risk for the resulting property damage to his tractor. Preferred Risk filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a determination of the issues of law relating to coverage under Sheryl Jackson’s automobile insurance policy. The trial court found for the appellees Sheryl, Roy, and Eddie Jackson, reasoning that enforcement of the aforementioned exclusion would violate the legislative intent of Chapter 324, Florida Statutes and the public policy of Florida.
The trial court erred in finding the exclusionary language invalid. The policy clearly and unambiguously excludes from coverage the damage to Eddie Jackson’s tractor. See New Hampshire Insurance Co. v. Carter, 359 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Furthermore, Section 324.021(1), Florida Statutes (1977) expressly excludes “farm tractors” from the definition of “motor vehicles.” Accordingly, it is difficult to imagine how the legislative intent of Chapter 324 or the public policy of Florida could be violated by a similar exclusion in the insurance policy.
REVERSED.
JOANOS and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
PER CURIAM.
Appellees’ Motion for Rehearing is granted. After review of the Motion for Rehearing and further review of the briefs of both parties, we adhere to our original opinion.
JOANOS, THOMPSON and WIGGIN-TON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chehardy v. Harrison (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)…financial responsibility statute’s definition of “motor vehicle” excepts “traction engines, road rollers, farm tractors, power shovels, and well drillers” from its scope. § 324.021(1), Fla. Stat. (2020); see Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jackson, 414 So. 2d 532, 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (upholding insurance policy exclusion for damage caused by farm machinery because section 324.021(1) “expressly excludes ‘farm tractors’ from the definition of ‘motor vehicles’”). 5 Rippy v. Shepard, 80 So. 3d 305, 309 (Fla…
Authorities Cited
- NEW Hampshire Ins. Co. v. Carter, 359 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)