American Fire and Cas. Co. v. Sinz, 84-1914
Decision Date | 02 April 1986 |
Docket Number | No. 84-1914,84-1914 |
Citation | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 772,487 So.2d 340 |
Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 772 AMERICAN FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and West American Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Bradford SINZ, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Rosemary Wilder and Richard A. Sherman of the Law Offices of Richard A. Sherman, and Robert C. Pickford, Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.
Arnold R. Ginsberg of Horton, Perse & Ginsberg, Miami, and Perline & Sottilaire, Miami, for appellee.
This case involves uninsured motorists coverage. The issues here are whether the trial court erred in holding that (1) appellee was an insured under two corporate policies (i.e., policies in which a corporation was the named insured), and (2) appellee's unauthorized settlement with the third party tort-feasor did not void the coverage. We find no error in either respect and affirm.
On the first issue, the operative facts are as follows: Appellee, while a passenger in a non-owned automobile, sustained injuries due to the negligence of the driver (third party tort-feasor). At that time appellee was a resident of the household of his father, Edward Sinz. The latter was an executive officer of Sinz Realty, Inc. (the named insured in the American Fire & Casualty Company policy), and was also an executive officer of Sinz-Owen Associates, Inc. (the named insured in the West American Insurance Company policy). Each of those policies provided, under the basic automobile liability coverage, that the persons insured included the named insured and "any ... executive officer thereof...." Under the uninsured motorists coverage the persons insured included "the named insured and any designated insured and, while residents of the same household the spouse and relatives of either."
Appellants argue, in reliance upon Pearcy v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 429 So.2d 1298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), and Nicks v. Hartford Insurance Group, 291 So.2d 673 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974), that policies in which a corporation is the named insured can not provide any coverage to a relative because a corporation can have no relatives. There is, however, a substantial and important difference between the policy in the Pearcy case which did not designate officers and executives of the named insured as additional insureds, and the policy in this case which expressly designated executive officers of the named insured as additional insureds. Thus, in this case, appellee is an insured under the uninsured motorists coverage, not by virtue of being a relative of a named insured corporation (which he could not be) but by virtue of being (as he indeed was) a relative resident of the same household as a designated insured, i.e., an executive officer of the corporation, a class of persons expressly named as insured under that coverage.
On the second issue, appellants contend that because appellee entered into a settlement agreement with the third party tort-feasor without the consent of appellants, which conduct violated both a policy provision and section 627.727(6), Florida Statutes (1978), such unauthorized settlement constituted prejudice as a matter of law and therefore voided the coverage, citing in support of that argument Lopez v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 412 So.2d 394 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Travelers Insurance Co. v. Gray, 360 So.2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Sena v. State Farm Mutual, 305 So.2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); and McInnis v. State Farm Mutual, 208 So.2d 481 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968). Of the cited cases, only the Lopez case 1 holds that prejudice is established as a matter of law. In the other cited cases, the issue of prejudice was not presented to the trial court, a matter expressly...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Woznicki v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.
...Co. v. Bough, 310 Ark. 21, 834 S.W.2d 637 (1992) ; Lauric v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 209 P.3d 190 (Colo.App.2009) ; Am. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Sinz, 487 So.2d 340 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1986) ; Taylor v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., 90 Hawai‘i 302, 978 P.2d 740 (1999) ; Bantz v. Bongard, 124 Idaho 780, 864 P.2d......
-
American Economy Ins. Co. v. Bogdahn
...a partnership and the case was decided based on partnership law, not policy language ambiguity. Some include American Fire & Cas. Co. v. Sinz, 487 So.2d 340 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1986). It is not on point because the injured person was a relative resident of an additional designated named insure......
-
Woznicki v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 52
...Ins. Co. v. Bough, 834 S.W.2d 637 (Ark. 1992); Lauric v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 209 P.3d 190 (Colo. App. 2009); Am. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Sinz, 487 So. 2d 340 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986); Taylor v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., 978 P.2d 740 (Haw. 1999); Bantz v. Bongard, 864 P.2d 618 (Idaho 1993); Progres......
-
Woznicki v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 52
...Ins. Co. v. Bough, 834 S.W.2d 637 (Ark. 1992); Lauric v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 209 P.3d 190 (Colo. App. 2009); Am. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Sinz, 487 So. 2d 340 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986); Taylor v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., 978 P.2d 740 (Haw. 1999); Bantz v. Bongard, 864 P.2d 618 (Idaho 1993); Progres......