ARTHUR E. ANDERSON, APPELLANT,
v.
AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY AND TRAVELERS 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.
Insured with beneficial but not legal title to a vehicle is entitled to personal injury protection coverage because the policy's exclusion applies only to those holding legal title.
A personal injury protection exclusion for an "owner" applies only to those holding legal title, not to those with merely a beneficial interest in a vehicle.
[1] A personal injury protection exclusion for an "owner" of an uninsured vehicle is limited by its own definition to those holding legal title and does not apply to one with…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“any legal interpretation of the term "owner" must be limited to the definition set forth”
Court explaining that the policy's definition of owner as legal title holder must be strictly applied
An insured had a beneficial interest in a motor vehicle but did not hold legal title at the time of an accident; the insured was under contract to pur…
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 Exclusion Clause Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Judge.
This is an appeal by an insured from that portion of a trial judge’s order which denied coverage by reason of a provision in Aetna’s policy excluding personal injury protection coverage to an owner. We reverse.
The insurance policy sought to exclude personal injury protection benefits “to the named insured or any relative while occupying a motor vehicle of which the named insured is the owner and which is not an insured motor vehicle under this insurance.” In another paragraph, the policy defined “owner” as one who holds legal title to the uninsured vehicle. Under the facts before us now, the insured had a beneficial interest in the vehicle but he did not hold legal title to the vehicle at the time of the accident.1
Reversed and remanded with instrue-tions.
Strictly construing the terms of the policy, as we must, any legal interpretation of the term “owner” must be limited to the definition set forth. Thus, the trial court erred in applying the PIP exclusion because the insured did not have legal title to the vehicle. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s decision since the PIP exclusion is inapplicable.
REVERSED.
DOWNEY and HERSEY, JJ., concur. . The insured was under contract to purchase the vehicle.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dean Wish, LLC v. LEE Cnty. (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)…conveys legal title."). Dean Wish never disputed the validity of the corrective deed. Dean Wish's retention of its right to monetary damages did not equate to a retention of the legal title to the property. Cf. Anderson v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 443 So. 2d 404, 404-05 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) ("[T]he policy defined 'owner' as one who holds legal title to the uninsured vehicle. Under the facts before us now, the insured had a beneficial interest - 12 - in the vehicle but he did not hold legal title to the veh…