Comesanas v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., AUTO-OWNERS
| Decision Date | 08 October 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-02656,AUTO-OWNERS,96-02656 |
| Citation | 700 So.2d 118 |
| Parties | 22 Fla. L. Weekly D2382 Jorge COMESANAS and Harriet Comesanas, his wife, Appellants, v.INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Mark G. Morgan, M.D. of Law Offices of Rood & Morgan, Tampa, for Appellants.
Daniel F. Pilka of Sawyer & Pilka, P.A., Brandon, for Appellee.
Jorge Comesanas and Harriet Comesanas appeal from the summary judgment which determined that their uninsured motorist carrier, Auto-Owners Insurance Company (Auto-Owners), was not liable for damages resulting from an accident with a bus owned by Hartline, a self-insured public carrier. We affirm because the Comesanas' uninsured motorist policy specifically excludes from coverage vehicles owned and operated by a self-insurer.
On November 27, 1991, Mr. Comesanas was involved in an automobile accident with a bus owned by Hartline and operated by its employee. Hartline, a public transportation system serving Hillsborough County, is self-insured as a subdivision of a municipality pursuant to section 768.28(15)(a), Florida Statutes (1993). The Comesanas sued Hartline on a theory of negligence and sued Auto-Owners for uninsured motorist coverage. Auto-Owners moved for summary judgment, claiming that the Hartline bus was not an "uninsured motor vehicle" because of Hartline's status as a self-insured subdivision of a municipality.
The coverage portion of the Auto-Owners policy defines an "uninsured motor vehicle" as follows: "[a]n 'uninsured motor vehicle' does not include any vehicle ... (2) owned or operated by a self-insurer under any applicable motor vehicle law, (3) owned by any governmental unit or agency."
The trial court entered final summary judgment in favor of Auto-Owners, relying upon Amica Mutual Ins. Co. v. Amato, 667 So.2d 802 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), review denied, 676 So.2d 1368 (Fla.1996). We agree with the Fourth District's holding in Amica and conclude that the relevant policy provision and Hartline's status as a self-insurer are indistinguishable from the relevant elements deemed controlling in Amica. Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Young v. Progressive Southeastern Ins. Co.
...of Amica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Amato, 667 So.2d 802 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), and its recent decision in Comesanas v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 700 So.2d 118, 119 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). See Young, 712 So.2d at 461. The Second District then certified to this Court the question of the validity of the p......
-
United Services Auto. Ass'n v. Phillips, 97-02462.
...320.02 apply." 2. USAA contends that we implicitly recognized the validity of government vehicle exclusions in Comesanas v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 700 So.2d 118 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), when we affirmed a judgment for the insurer under a policy containing exclusions for vehicles owned by governme......
-
Young v. Progressive Southeastern Ins. Co., 97-02776
...based on the holding in Amica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Amato, 667 So.2d 802 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). We affirm. See Comesanas v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 700 So.2d 118 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). We also certify the following question as one of great public IS A POLICY PROVISION WHICH EXCLUDES A VEHICLE OW......