Florida Farm Bureau Ins. Co. v. Government Employees Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 26 April 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. KK-415,KK-415 |
| Citation | 371 So.2d 166 |
| Parties | FLORIDA FARM BUREAU INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, M. A. Cunningham, Lance A. Cunningham, and Cammie C. Deese, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert K. Rouse, Jr., of Smalbein, Eubank, Johnson, Rosier & Bussey, P. A., Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Frank M. Gafford, Lake City, for Cammie C. Deese, and Richard A. Simon of Gurney, Gurney & Handley, P. A., Orlando, for Government Employees Ins. Co., appellee.
The question on this appeal is whether a family exclusion clause in appellant's automobile liability insurance policy barred recovery of a third party contribution claim against its insured, a joint tortfeasor in an accident for which the contribution claimants had paid all of the damages. We hold that the clause could not validly bar recovery and affirm the trial court.
The stipulated facts reveal that a two-car accident occurred between Lance Cunningham and Cammie Deese in July, 1976. Deese's wife, Myrtis, was injured, and she brought a bodily injury action against Cunningham, his father (the owner of the car), as well as the father's insurer, Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO). The Cunninghams and GEICO counterclaimed against Cammie Deese and his insurer, Florida Farm Bureau, for contribution. A jury trial was held on liability and damages. Myrtis Deese's damages were assessed at $25,000. Cunningham was found 90% Negligent in the accident; Deese 10% Negligent. GEICO paid the award to Mrs. Deese on behalf of the Cunninghams and pursued its contribution claim against Cammie Deese.
Florida Farm Bureau denied coverage, relying upon a family exclusion clause in its liability policy precluding coverage "to bodily injury or to death of the insured or any member of the family of the insured residing in the same household." Florida Farm contends that such clauses have been upheld as valid in Reid v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 352 So.2d 1172 (Fla.1977), and therefore the clause must be enforced as written to preclude coverage for injuries to Deese's wife. Appellees reply that abrogation of the interspousal tort immunity doctrine for contribution claims in Shor v. Paoli, 353 So.2d 825 (Fla.1977), has undercut the policy reasons supporting such clauses and has in effect rendered them contrary to public policy.
We agree with appellees. First, it is apparent that the rationale urged by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Petrik v. New Hampshire Ins. Co., KK-35
...Club argues, California As to the applicability of the family exclusion clause in Florida, we recently held in Florida Farm Bureau v. GEICO, 371 So.2d 166 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), that such clauses did not bar recovery of a third party contribution claim against a joint tortfeasor who was the h......
-
Florida Farm Bureau Ins. Co. v. Government Employees Ins. Co.
...writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, in Florida Farm Bureau Ins. Co. v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 371 So.2d 166 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Not only has the district court certified the question involved in this cause as being of great pub......
-
Petrik v. New Hampshire Ins. Co.
...court Fla.App. 379 So.2d 1287, rejected this contention and, citing its prior decision in Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Co. v. Government Employees Insurance Co., 371 So.2d 166 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), it held that family exclusion clauses such as this one did not bar recovery of a third-party ......
-
Jones v. Barwick
...in a personal injury case. The issue in this case is the same issue decided in Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Company v. Government Employees Insurance Company, et al, 371 So.2d 166 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); does a family exclusion clause in an automobile liability insurance policy prevent recove......