287 So.2d 665 (Fla. 1973), 42880, Midwest Mut. Ins. Co. v. Santiesteban
|Citation:||287 So.2d 665|
|Opinion Judge:||Author: Dekle|
|Party Name:||MIDWEST MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. William SANTIESTEBAN, a minor, by and through his father and next friend, Theodore Santiesteban, and Theodore Santiesteban, Individually, Respondents.|
|Attorney:||James E. Tribble of Blackwell, Walker, Gray & Powers, Miami, for petitioner.|
|Case Date:||December 12, 1973|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Florida|
Rehearing Denied Jan. 31, 1974.
James E. Tribble of Blackwell, Walker, Gray & Powers, Miami, for petitioner.
Edward A. Perse of Horton & Perse, and Fuller, Brumer, Moss & Cohen, Miami, for respondents.
In this cause for review on certiorari from the Third District's affirmance of the plaintiffs' summary judgment, 1 we consider plaintiffs' (respondents') claims for the uninsured motorist coverage of $10,000 under each of two separate insurance policies. Both were issued by petitioner insurance company; one was upon a friend's Honda motorcycle which the minor plaintiff was riding. The $10,000 is conceded since plaintiff was admittedly injured by an uninsured motorist, and the respondent insurance company at all times admitted liability under this policy. The company steadfastly denied, however, any coverage under a 'limited policy' issued on another Honda motorcycle to one Dennis F. Mahfuz, 6820 S.W. 19th Ter., Miami, Fla., 33155, with a 'Loss Payee' clause payable to Commercial Credit Corp.
The only was the injured minor figures in the 'Mahfuz' policy is being listed--not as an insured--but as 'principal operator if other than named insured.' This was prior to the new 18-year-old statute; 2 whether the vehicle was thus titled and insured for purposes of liability contingencies or a conditional sales contract or whatever reason, the actual ownership of the motorcycle and 'the insured' under the policy was Dennis Mahfuz, a 'stranger' to respondents insofar as any relationship under this policy is concerned and who resides at a different address.
We might have a different result here except for the fact that the injured plaintiff was not 'a resident of the same household' as that of the named insured Dennis Mahfuz, as was the case in Mullis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 252 So.2d 229 (Fla.1971), wherein this Court held that the uninsured motorist coverage was available there, where the injured party 'was a resident member of the household of the named insured.' This is a critical distinction in our case in which the injured minor had, for...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP