Dorrell v. State Fire & Cas. Co.
| Decision Date | 01 April 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 68-873,68-873 |
| Citation | 221 So.2d 5 |
| Parties | Elizabeth DORRELL, Appellant, v. STATE FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, a Florida corporation, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Judith A. Brechner, Miami Beach, and Israel Abrams, Miami, for appellant.
Matthews, Mandina & Lipsky, Miami, for appellees.
Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and PEARSON and SWANN, JJ.
The appellant was injured when a motorcycle on which she was a passenger collided with an automobile driven by an uninsured motorist. The appellee insurance company instituted an action for a declaration that the appellant was not protected by the insurance policy of the owner of the motorcycle. The court rendered judgment in favor of the appellee on the ground that a 'motorcycle is not an 'automobile' as defined in the policy. * * *'
Counsel have agreed that under the terms of this policy the appellant would have received the benefit of uninsured motorist coverage if the vehicle on which she was riding had been an automobile.
Appellant claims coverage under the subject policy and urges that As the term 'automobile' is defined in the pertinent provision of the policy a motorcycle is considered an automobile:
'* * * 'automobile' means a land motor vehicle or trailer not operated on rails or crawler-treads, but does not mean: (1) a farm type tractor or other equipment designed for use primarily off public roads, except while actually upon public roads, or (2) a land motor vehicle or trailer while located for use as a residence or premises and not as a vehicle.'
In interpreting an automobile insurance policy the courts have followed the definitions given in the policy itself. See Valdes v. Prudence Mutual Casualty Company, Fla.App.1968, 207 So.2d 312, which cites Westerhausen v. Allied Mutual Insurance Company, 258 Iowa 969, 140 N.W.2d 719 (1966). The policy in the Westerhausen case provided "'private passenger automobile' means a Four wheel private passenger, station wagon or jeep type automobile." 140 N.W.2d at 722 (emphasis added).
The definition of 'private passenger automobile' in the instant case is identical with that in the Westerhausen case except that it does not contain the words 'four wheel'. And while the policy specifically provides that 'automobile' does not mean (1) and (2), above, it does not specifically provide that 'automobile' does not mean a motorcycle. So when we apply the maxim 'expressio unius est exclusio alterius' to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Elledge v. Warren
...it was not so nominated, the Process of reasoning which the court used in this case was that applied in Darrell v. State Fire and Casualty Company, 221 So.2d 5, 6 (Fla.App. 3 Dist. 1969): 'So when we apply the maxim 'expressio unius est exclusio alterius' to the above quoted portion of the ......
-
Riley v. Viking Ins. Co. of Wisconsin
...29, 28 Cal.Rptr. 328, 330 (1963); Standard Marine Ins. Co. v. Allyn, 333 So.2d 497 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1976); Dorrell v. State Fire & Cas. Co., 221 So.2d 5 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1969); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Bailey, 58 Hawaii 284, 568 P.2d 1185 (1977); Boucher v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co.,......
-
Henriquez v. Total Bike, LLC
...in circumstances where the term automobile is not limited to a specified type of vehicle. See, e.g., Dorrell v. State Fire & Casualty Co., 221 So. 2d 5, 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969) (holding that a "motorcycle is considered an automobile" under Florida law, unless the parties specifically limit the......
-
Bankes v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...Iowa 969, 140 N.W.2d 719 (1966); Valdes v. Prudence Mutual Casualty Company, 207 So.2d 312 (Fla.App.1968). Cf. Dorrell v. State Fire & Casualty Co., 221 So.2d 5 (Fla.App.1969). Thus, had State Farm not broadened the terms of the exclusion by using the words 'land motor vehicle' rather than ......