NOLAN PLUNKETT, APPELLANT,

v.

ALICE RENEAU, ETC., APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boynton, 486 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1986)
  …urring in the pursuit of a business. This exclusion is applicable to the facts of this case. Luke’s policy, therefore, did not provide coverage for this particular occurrence. An analogous situation is found in American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Boyd, 357 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). In that case, Boyd was injured in an automobile accident caused by the negligence of Hansen. Hansen had a liability policy which excluded coverage while traveling on military orders, which is what he was doing at the time of the…
• Boynton v. Allstate Ins. Co., 443 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
  …many instances, impossible in hit-and-run cases. Any other construction of the statute is unfair and unduly restricts the application intended by the Legislature, (emphasis added). 249 So. 2d at 430. In American Fire and Casualty Company v. Boyd, 357 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), the court found the vehicle which caused plaintiff’s injury to be “uninsured,” though covered by a liability policy, because of a provision which excluded coverage when the insured was travelling under military orders. The court…
• Gares v. Allstate Ins. Co., 365 F.3d 990 (11th Cir. 2004)
  …ecause the tortfeasor had a liability policy. As that policy “specifically excluded injuries occurring in the pursuit of a business,” it “did not provide coverage for this particular occurrence.” Id. (discussing American Fire & Cas. Co. v. Boyd, 357 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)). Concluding that the automobile was “uninsured” in “the context of the [injured mechanic’s] uninsured motorist policy,” the Florida Supreme Court addressed Reid in a footnote. It said that under Reid “a vehicle cannot be both…

Authorities Cited

• Peavy v. State, 350 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
• Dresser v. Dresser, 350 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)