ROBERT DAVID HODGE, APPELLANT,
v.
HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY AND LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, 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.
Robert Hodge, a garage owner, appeals the denial of insurance coverage for an automobile accident that occurred while he was road-testing a customer's vehicle. The court upheld the insurers' denial based on policy exclusions that explicitly excluded coverage for non-owned automobiles used in the insured's automobile business.
The court held that the insurers' policies did not extend coverage to Hodge because he was operating a non-owned automobile while engaged in his automobile business, which was expressly excluded by the policy exclusion clauses.
[1] An automobile insurance policy exclusion for a non-owned automobile while used by a person engaged in the "automobile business" applies when the insured is road testing a…
[2] An insurer may deny coverage for an accident occurring while a non-owned vehicle is being used by a person employed or engaged in the automobile business, pursuant to an…
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“This policy does not apply under Section 1: . . . to a non-owned automobile while maintained or used by any person while such person is employed or otherwise engaged in . . . The automobile business of the insured or of any other person or organization . . .”
The exclusion clause from both insurance policies that barred coverage for non-owned vehicles used in the automobile business
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Hodge operates a Buick repair garage. Benjamin Posner brought his Buick to Hodge's garage and requested Hodge to road-test it to locate a dashb…
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 Non-Owned Automobile Coverage cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Robert Hodge, defendant, appeals a final judgment determining that appellee insurers’ policies did not extend coverage to him at the time of an automobile accident.
Robert Hodge operates a Buick repair or service garage and on the day of the accident, Benjamin Posner drove his Buick to the garage and requested Hodge to drive his ear to find the source of a noise emanating from the dashboard. Hodge while road testing the car became involved in an automobile collision with Arthur Manuel. Manuel sustained serious injuries and sued Hodge as operator and his liability insurer, Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, appellee herein; and Posner as owner and his insurer, Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, appellee herein. Hartford had issued a policy on Hodge’s personal car which contained the following exclusion:
“5. Exclusions: This policy does not apply under Section 1: .
“(h) to a non-owned automobile while maintained or used by any person while such person is employed or otherwise engaged in
“1. The automobile business of the insured or of any other person or organization . . . ”
Lumbermens’ policy contained an identical exclusion clause, and Lumbermans and Hartford denied coverage to Hodge. The coverage issue was severed and tried non-jury. At the conclusion of trial, the judge found that the accident occurred while Pos-ner’s car was being used by Hodge while Hodge was engaged in his own automobile business. He thereupon entered judgment for Hartford and Lumbermens. Hodge appeals.
The record supports the finding of the trial judge that Hodge at the time of the accident was road testing Posner’s car and, therefore, he was engaging in the automobile business. Thus, the entry of judgment for appellee insurers based upon the exclusion clauses in their respective policies was eminently correct. See Dixie Automobile Insurance Corp. v. Mason, 155 So. 2d 172 (Fla.1st DCA 1963); Hodapp v. Shelby Mutual Insurance Company, 166 So. 2d 772 (Fla.2d DCA 1964); Craine v. Gee, 276 So. 2d 521 (Fla.2d DCA 1973); Peterson v. Highlands Insurance Company, 328 So. 2d 49 (Fla.3d DCA 1976) and cases cited therein.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Castillo, 362 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…or or partner;” ** We hold that it is not and reverse, the trial court’s final summary judgment so holding. See: Schaffer v. Government Employees Insurance Company, 280 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); Hodge v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, 339 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970); Compare: Reid v. State Farm & Casualty Company, 352 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 1977). The cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Reversed and remanded, with directions.…
Authorities Cited
- Hodapp v. Shelby Mut. Ins. Co. of Shelby, 166 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Dixie Auto. Ins. Corp. v. Mrs. I. A. Mason, 155 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)
- Craine v. Maddie Virginia GEE, 276 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- Eduardo and Hilda Perez v. Leroy's Crane Serv., 328 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Donnie M. Peterson v. Highlands Ins. Co., 328 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)