FLORIAN J. STOLFI, APPELLANT,
v.
PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, 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 policy exclusion preventing uninsured motorist benefits for injury incurred while operating an employer's vehicle is void under Florida law.
[1] A policy exclusion preventing uninsured motorist coverage for injuries incurred while operating an employer's vehicle is void under Florida Statutes Section 627.727 (1977…
[2] An injured party is entitled to uninsured motorist benefits when occupying a vehicle that is insured, even if the tortfeasor's vehicle is uninsured.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was injured while driving a Post Office jeep during the course of his employment, and the tortfeasor was an uninsured motorist. The insuranc…
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 Policy Exclusions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Florian Stolfi appeals from a summary judgment in favor of Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance Company. The trial court held that, as a matter of law, a policy exclusion prevented recovery of uninsured motorist benefits for injury incurred while operating an employer’s vehicle.1 Appellant, during the course of his employment, was injured while driving a Post Office jeep. The tortfeasor was, of course, an uninsured motorist.
The law then in effect, Section 627.-727, Florida Statutes (1977), voids Prudential’s attempt to limit coverage. Johns v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 337 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Cf. Mullis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 252 So. 2d 229 (Fla.1971), construing similar provisions found in Section 627.0851, Florida Statutes (1969) (repealed 1971).
Appellee’s reliance on State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Wimpee, 376 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) is misplaced. In that case, the injured party claiming uninsured motorist benefits had occupied a vehicle that was not insured.
Under Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (1977), aggregation is allowed if the claimant is a named insured on one policy and an additional insured on another. South Carolina Insurance Company v. Kokay, 398 So. 2d 1355 (Fla.1981). Given the facts present here, Stolfi is entitled to receive benefits under both policies. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company v. Curry, 395 So. 2d 530 (Fla.1981).
We conclude, therefore, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for Prudential and, accordingly, reverse and remand with directions to enter judgment for appellant.
Reversed and remanded.
. The policy of insurance issued to Stolfi for his personal vehicle provided:
Nor will we pay for injuries suffered by anyone insured under this part if occupying or hit by a car (not covered under this part) which you don’t own if it is furnished for your regular use or for the regular use of such relatives (for example, a company car). [Emphasis in original].
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Mullis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 252 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 1971)
- State v. Pierpont, 398 So. 2d 1355 (Fla. 1981)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Wimpee, 376 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Johns v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 337 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Curry, 395 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 1981)