AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
TRANSAMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., 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.
Two liability insurers dispute priority and coverage amounts for bodily injuries caused by a leased vehicle operated by the lessee's employee. The court affirms the trial court's determination of the layering of insurance coverage: the lessor's insurer provides primary coverage at the statutory minimum, followed by the lessee's insurer as excess coverage, and then the lessor's insurer again as umbrella coverage.
The lessor's insurer provides primary liability coverage up to the statutory minimum of $10,000. The lessee's insurer provides the next layer of excess coverage up to valid and collectible limits ($250,000). The lessor's insurer again provides umbrella or excess coverage for the owner-lessor's vicarious secondary liability under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine, up to valid and collectible coverage limits ($490,000).
[1] A lease provision attempting to shift primary liability coverage from a lessor to a lessee is ineffective if it does not meet statutory "boldface" type requirements.
[2] An owner-lessor's insurer provides primary liability coverage up to the statutory minimum requirement for a leased vehicle.
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“because a certain provision of the lease agreement did not satisfy the "boldface" type requirement of section 627.7263, Florida Statutes, it was not effective to shift responsibility for primary liability coverage from the lessor to the lessee”
Establishes that the lessor's insurer retains primary liability responsibility when lease provisions do not comply with statutory requirements
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA motor vehicle was leased from an owner-lessor to a lessee. The lessee's employee operated the leased vehicle and caused bodily injuries to a third p…
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 Permissive User cases and more on FLexlaw
[*261] COWART, Judge.
This is a controversy between the liability insurer of the owner-lessor, and the liability insurer of the lessee of a motor vehicle, as to the priority and amount each insurer is liable for bodily injuries caused to a third party by the operation of the leased vehicle by the lessee’s employee.
We earlier held in this controversy that because a certain provision of the lease agreement did not satisfy the “boldface” type requirement of section 627.7263, Florida Statutes, it was not effective to shift responsibility for primary liability coverage from the lessor to the lessee. Accordingly, we held the owner-lessor’s insurer provided primary liability coverage up to the statutory minimum requirement ($10,000). We remanded for the trial court to determine liability for subsequent layers of insurance coverage. Holler Rental Co. v. Marsh, 488 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). On remand, the trial court determined that, following the owner-lessor’s insurer’s statutory primary coverage of $10,000, next, by virtue of the driver’s status as active tortfeasor, the driver’s insurer (being the lessee-employer’s insurer) provided “excess” coverage to the extent of valid and collectible coverage ($250,000 in this case); then, by virtue of the vicarious secondary liability of the owner-lessor under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine for the negligence of a permissive user of its vehicle (and section 324.151(l)(a), Florida Statutes), the owner-lessor’s insurer again provided “excess” or “umbrella” coverage to the limits of valid and collectible coverage ($490,000 in this case).
We affirm on the authority of Allstate Ins. Co. of Canada v. Value Rent-A-Car of Florida, Inc., 463 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), review denied, 476 So. 2d 672 (Fla.1985).
AFFIRMED.
UPCHURCH, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. OF Canada v. Value Rent-A-Car OF Fla., Inc., 463 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Martin v. State, 488 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)