UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOC., APPELLANT,
v.
DIXIE 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.
Florida court reversed summary judgment, holding that an insurer cannot seek pro-rata contribution for uninsured motorist coverage when the injured insured's own vehicle was excluded from coverage under a family member's policy due to a valid statutory exclusion.
An insurer of an injured person cannot seek pro-rata contribution from another insurer when the injured person's own uninsured vehicle was validly excluded from coverage under a family member's policy.
[1] Under Fla. …
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 intelligenceBradford Brandon, a resident of his father James Brandon's household, was injured while driving his own automobile. Bradford was an additional insured…
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 Anti-Stacking Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, Judge.
We reverse the summary judgment in favor of appellee on the authority of New Hampshire Insurance Group v. Harbach, 439 So. 2d 1383 (Fla.1983). At issue here, as in Harbach, is the interpretation of section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (the anti-stacking statute) for uninsured motorist coverage, as the statute existed between 1976 and October 1, 1980. Although Bradford Brandon was a resident of his father James Brandon’s household, and thus an additional insured under James’ liability policy, Bradford's automobile was not insured under James’ policy, and that policy specifically excluded from uninsured motorist coverage bodily injury “sustained by any person while occupying any motor vehicle owned by ... a family member which is not insured for coverage under this policy.” This was a valid provision under the statute in question. Therefore, Brandon did not have uninsured motorist coverage under his father’s policy, because he was driving his own automobile when he was injured, and Dixie Insurance Company, which insured Bradford Brandon, cannot seek pro-rata contribution from United Services Automobile Assoc., which insured James Brandon. The judgment is reversed with directions to enter judgment for United Services.
REVERSED.
COBB, C.J., and SHARP, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Enmund v. State, 439 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 1983)
- NEW Hampshire Ins. Grp. v. Harbach, 439 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 1983)