WILLIAM ALFRED LAMOS, APPELLANT,
v.
CONSOLIDATED MUTUAL 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 homeowner's policy exclusion for automobiles operated away from the premises was valid and enforceable.
[1] An automobile exclusion in a homeowner's insurance policy is valid and enforceable when the accident occurs away from the insured premises.
[2] A homeowner's insurance policy exclusion for the operation of automobiles away from the premises applies even if the insured signed an application for a minor's driver's…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant sought coverage under his homeowner's policy for an automobile accident that occurred off the premises, involving his son driving the in…
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 Imputed Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant brought an action seeking to recover against the defendant under his homeowner’s policy, for an automobile accident which occurred off the premises. The automobile in question was owned by *553the homeowner and being driven by his son.
The trial court granted a summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Consolidated Mutual Insurance Company, because of the provision in the policy that contained the following exclusion:
* * * * * *
“Section II of this Policy Does not Apply:
ifc ‡ >}c >fi ‡ *
“(b) under Coverages E and F, to the ownership, maintenance, operation, use, loading or unloading of (1) automobiles or midget automobiles while away from the premises or the ways immediately adjoining, * * *”
* * * * * ' *
This appeal ensued.
The appellant contends that notwithstanding this exclusion the homeowner should be liable under the policy because of his execution of an application for his minor son to obtain an operator’s permit to drive a motor vehicle, pursuant to § 322.09, Fla.Stat.1 F.S.A. We affirm.
We find the exclusion to be valid in the homeowner’s policy and, under the state of the record, the trial judge was correct in his ruling. Morari v. Atlantic Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 105 Ariz. 573, 468 P. 2d 564; Herzog v. National American Insurance Company, 2 Cal.3d 192, 84 Cal. Rptr. 705, 465 P.2d 841; Huggins v. Yoshiwara, 2 Cal.3d 200, 84 Cal.Rptr. 709, 465 P.2d 845; La Bonte v. Federal Mutual Insurance Company, 159 Conn. 252, 268 A.2d 663; Lang v. General Insurance Company of America, 268 Minn. 36, 127 N.W.2d 541.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Arrie Lee Shuman v. State, 358 So. 2d 1333 (Fla. 1978)…ion. It is an established rule of statutory construction that legislative intent should be ascertained from an examination of a statute as a whole, rather than any one part thereof. Florida Jai Alai, Inc. v. Lake Howell Water & Reclamation District, 274 So. 2d 552 (Fla.1973); State v. Hayles, 240 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1970); Englewood Water District v. Tate, 334 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). An examination of Section 27.54 in its entirety reflects that the enactment relates solely to operation expenses of the public…
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Caronia, 395 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…obviously a land vehicle. Therefore, it was within the exclusion and no coverage was afforded under this homeowner’s policy. Dorrell v. State Fire and Casualty Company, 221 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); Lamos v. Consolidated Mutual Insurance Company, 274 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). The September 9, 1979 order appealed by Allstate in Case No. 79-1994 be and the same is hereby reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Reversed and remanded with directions. . See earlier…
-
Cleveland Frazier v. The City OF Miami, 279 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1973)…Certiorari denied. 274 So. 2d 552. CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence