Day v. U.S. Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 80-145
| Decision Date | 01 October 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-145,80-145 |
| Citation | 388 So.2d 351 |
| Parties | Michael DAY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, a Foreign Corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Michael Maher of Maher, Overchuck & Langa, Orlando, for appellant.
Monroe E. McDonald of Sanders, McEwan, Mims & McDonald, Orlando, for appellee.
GREEN, OLIVER L., Associate Judge.
The Appellant, Michael Day, appeals from a final order granting appellee's, United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, motion for judgment on the pleadings. We reverse.
On June 30, 1978, the appellant, Michael Day, was operating an automobile owned by his brother, Charles Day, when he was injured in an automobile accident involving a negligent, uninsured motorist. Michael Day's injuries were covered under three separate policies of insurance, issued to three different named insureds. Michael Day had a policy issued in his name, with the appellee, United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, providing uninsured motorist coverage in the amount of $10,000/$20,000. Additionally, Michael Day was covered under a policy issued to his brother, Charles Day, by Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, providing uninsured motorist coverage in the amount of $10,000/$20,000. Michael Day was also covered under a third policy issued by the Insurance Company of North America, to his mother and step-father, with whom he resided at the time of the accident. A settlement in the amount of $35,000 was eventually reached regarding payment of uninsured motorist coverage under this last mentioned policy, issued to his mother and step-father.
These facts were admitted by the appellee, United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, however, it was contended that no stacking was possible under the provisions of Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (1977). The pivotal question in this appeal is whether the last sentence of Section 627.4132 relieves the appellant, Michael Day, from the provision which forbids stacking under certain circumstances. Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes provides:
627.4132 Stacking of coverages prohibited.-If an insured or named insured is protected by any type of motor vehicle insurance policy for liability, uninsured motorist, personal injury protection, or any other coverage, the policy shall provide that the insured or named insured is protected only to the extent of the coverage he has on the vehicle involved in the accident. However, if none of the insured's or named insured's vehicles is involved in the accident, coverage is available only to the extent of coverage on any one of the vehicles with applicable coverage. Coverage on any other vehicles shall not be added to or stacked upon that coverage. This section shall not apply to reduce the coverage available by reason of insurance policies insuring different named insureds.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal held, in McLellan v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 366 So.2d 811 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), that Section 627.4132 prohibits stacking entirely, even in cases where the policies sought to be stacked are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Florida Ins. Guaranty Ass'n v. Johnson
...689 (Fla.1966); Cox v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 378 So.2d 330 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).5 Day v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 388 So.2d 351 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).6 Porter v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Co., 385 So.2d 1100 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Stephan v. U. S. Fideli......
-
South Carolina Ins. Co. v. Kokay
...4th DCA 1979). However, other district courts have aligned themselves with the instant decision. See Day v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 388 So.2d 351 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Porter v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 385 So.2d 1100 (Fla.2d DCA 1980); Stephan v. United Sta......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Lawrence, 60167
...for review was announced in an opinion that reads, in its entirety: AFFIRMED on the authority of Day v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 388 So.2d 351 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Contra, McLellan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 366 So.2d 811 (Fla. 4th DCA State Farm Mutual Automobile In......
-
Willard v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 79-350
...in policies insuring different named insureds. Since that ruling this court has rejected McLellan. Day v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 388 So.2d 351 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Florida Insurance Guaranty Association v. Johnson, 392 So.2d 1348 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Accordingly, the order d......