JORGE COMESANAS AND HARRIET COMESANAS, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
AUTO-OWNERS 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.
The court held that the uninsured motorist policy did not cover damages from an accident with a self-insured public carrier because the policy specifically excluded vehicles owned and operated by self-insurers.
The Comesanas were in an accident with a bus owned by Hartline, a self-insured public transportation system. They sued their uninsured motorist carrie…
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 Uninsured Motorist Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Acting Chief Judge.
Jorge Comesanas and Harriet Comesanas appeal from the summary judgment which determined that their uninsured motorist carrier, Auto-Owners Insurance Company (Auto-Owners), was not liable for damages resulting from an accident with a bus owned by Hartline, a self-insured public carrier. We affirm because the Comesanas’ uninsured motorist policy specifically excludes from coverage vehicles owned and operated by a self-insurer. On November 27, 1991, Mr. Comesanas was involved in an automobile accident with a bus owned by Hartline and operated by its employee. Hartline, a public transportation system serving Hillsborough County, is self-insured as a subdivision of a municipality pursuant to section 768.28(15)(a), Florida Statutes (1993). The Comesanas sued Hartline on a theory of negligence and sued Auto-Owners for uninsured motorist coverage. Auto-Owners moved for summary judgment, claiming that the Hartline bus was not an “uninsured motor vehicle” because of Hartline’s status as a self-insured subdivision of a municipality.
The coverage portion of the Auto-Owners policy defines an “uninsured motor vehicle” as follows: “[a]n ‘uninsured motor vehicle’ does not include any vehicle ... (2) owned or operated by a self-insurer under any applicable motor vehicle law, (3) owned by any governmental unit or agency.”
The trial court entered final summary judgment in favor of Auto-Owners, relying upon Amica Mutual Ins. Co. v. Amato, 667 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), review denied, 676 So. 2d 1368 (Fla.1996). We agree with the Fourth District’s holding in Arnica and conclude that the relevant policy provision and Hartline’s status as a self-insurer are indistinguishable from the relevant elements deemed controlling in Arnica. Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed.
PATTERSON and FULMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Young v. Progressive Se. Ins. Co., 753 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 2000)…al court granted. On appeal, the Second District affirmed the order granting summary judgment on the authority of Amica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Amato, 667 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), and its recent decision in Comesanas v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 700 So. 2d 118, 119 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). See Young, 712 So. 2d at 461. The Second District then certified to this Court the question of the validity of the policy provision excluding self-insurers from the definition of “uninsured motorist” as one of great public i…
-
United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Phillips, 740 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…e provisions of s. 324.051 apply; and, in such case, the applicable proof of insurance provisions of s. 320.02 apply.” . USAA contends that we implicitly recognized the validity of government vehicle exclusions in Comesanas v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 700 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), when we affirmed a judgment for the insurer under a policy containing exclusions for vehicles owned by government entities and by self-insurers. But a closer reading of Comesanas demonstrates that it was based solely on the self-…1 / 2
-
Juan and Alina Young v. Progressive Se. Ins. Co., 712 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…na Young challenge the summary judgment entered in favor of Progressive Southeastern Insurance Company based on the holding in Amica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Amato, 667 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). We affirm. See Comesanas v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 700 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). We also certify the following question as one of great public importance: IS A POLICY PROVISION WHICH EXCLUDES A VEHICLE OWNED OR OPERATED BY A SELF-INSURER FROM THE DEFINITION OF “UNINSURED MOTOR VEHICLE” FOR PURPOSES OF UNINS…
Authorities Cited
- AMICA Mut. Ins. Co. v. Amato, 667 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)