CHARLES AND RUTH CAMPBELL, APPELLANTS,
v.
FLORIDA FARM BUREAU 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.
Florida Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company obtained a summary judgment declaring that its automobile insurance policy excluded liability coverage for a claim by the insured's emancipated adult daughter. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the policy's exclusion language was clear and unambiguous in excluding coverage for "children" regardless of dependency status.
The court held that the exclusionary language in Exclusion No. 11c is clear and unambiguous and excludes liability coverage for all children, not merely dependent resident children. The broader exclusionary language demonstrates the insurer's intent to exclude coverage more broadly than the limited definition of "your" in the Definitions section.
[1] An automobile insurance policy exclusion for bodily injury sustained by "your children" is clear and unambiguous.
[2] The definition of "you" and "your" in an insurance policy, referring to the named insured and their spouse and dependent children if residents of the same household, does…
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 intelligence“That the Court finds the exclusionary language contained in the FLORIDA FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY policy, specifically Exclusion No. 11c., to be clear and unambiguous.”
Establishes the threshold determination that the policy language is not ambiguous and should be interpreted according to its plain meaning
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Campbells held an automobile insurance policy issued by Florida Farm Bureau. Mrs. Campbell's emancipated adult daughter was allegedly injured in a…
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
PER CURIAM.
Florida Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company sought and obtained a judgment declaring that the automobile insurance policy it had issued to the Campbells provided no liability coverage for a claim made against them by Mrs. Campbell’s emancipated daughter, who was allegedly injured in an automobile accident caused by Mrs. Campbell’s negligence. The summary final judgment entered for the insurance company concisely sets forth and disposes of the contentions of the parties. The judgment provides in pertinent part:
“That the Court finds the exclusionary language contained in the FLORIDA FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY policy, specifically Exclusion No. 11c., to be clear and unam biguous. That Exclusion reads in pertinent part:
“ ‘We do not provide liability coverage for any person ... for bodily injury sustained by ... your children.’
“This language is clear and unequivocal and excludes coverage to the Defendants under the policy issued by the Plaintiff herein.
“The Defendants claim coverage pursuant to the Definitions section of the policy which states in pertinent part:
“ ‘ “You” and “your” refer to “the named insured” shown in the Declarations and the spouse and any dependent children if a resident of the same household.’
“The Defendants claim this definition shows an intent to exclude only dependent children under the policy. An opposite intent is clearly shown in Exclusion No. 11 of the policy whereby FLORIDA FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY excludes coverage: “ ‘For bodily injuries sustained by:
“‘a. You.
“ ‘b. Your spouse.
“ ‘c. Your children.
“ ‘d. A member of your household if that person is related by blood, marriage, foster relationship, or adoption, or the person for whose use of the automobile the insured is legally responsible.’
“If FLORIDA FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY was attempting to exclude coverage for only the named insured, spouses and resident dependent children, as the Defendants suggest, FLORIDA FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY would only have had to include the words ‘you’ and ‘your’ within Exclusion No. 11, however, as recited above, they intended the exclusion to be much broader than the definitional section and a clear manifestation of that intent is evident from the clear and unambiguous language contained in Exclusion No. 11.”
We agree with the trial court’s construction of the policy and affirm its ruling.
Affirmed.