Geico Indem. Co. v. Shazier, 1D09-2595.

Decision Date04 May 2010
Docket NumberNo. 1D09-2595.,1D09-2595.
Citation34 So.3d 42
PartiesGEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, Appellant,v.Kutasha P. SHAZIER; Tercina S. Jordan; Avis Rent-A-Car System, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Corporation; Rethell Byrd Chandler, as Mother and Natural Guardian of Jamelia A. Chandler, a minor; Carolyn E. Price, Individually and on behalf of her minor child Christeegia A. Price; The Estate of Camelia Y. Byrd, Lida Jean Parker, Whitney Marshall, Tenisha Marshall, and Monica Steele, Appellees.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Angela C. Flowers of Kubicki Draper, Ocala, for Appellant.

James E. Messer, Jr. of Fonvielle Lewis Foote & Messer, Tallahassee, for Appellee Monica Steele.

Henry J. Graham, II, of Graham Law Firm, P.A.; Robert Scott Cox and David H. Burns of Cox & Burns, Tallahassee, for Appellees Carolyn E. and Christeegia A. Price.

Gary A. Roberts and Stenise Rolle of Gary A. Roberts & Associates, Tallahassee for Appellees the Estate of Camelia Y. Byrd and Linda Jean Parker.

Henry C. Hunter of Henry C. Hunter & Associates, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellees Whitney and Tenisha Marshall.

Thomas Porter Crapps of Crapps Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellees Rethell Byrd and Jamelia A. Chandler.

ROBERTS, J.

This appeal arises from a final summary judgment determining that coverage existed under a family automobile insurance policy issued by the appellant, Geico Indemnity Company (Geico), for an accident involving a rental car. Geico argues that there was no coverage under the policy because the rental car did not qualify as a “temporary substitute auto.” We agree and reverse.

Kutasha Shazier owned a Ford Expedition. The Ford Expedition was covered under the policy issued by Geico to Shazier and her husband. The policy contained a standard “temporary substitute auto” provision which also extended coverage to:

[A] private passenger, farm, or utility auto or trailer, not owned by you, temporarily used with the permission of the owner. This vehicle must be used as a substitute for the owned auto or trailer when withdrawn from normal use because of its breakdown, repair, servicing, loss or destruction.

(Emphasis modified.)

When the Ford Expedition began experiencing transmission problems, Shazier rented a Hyundai Sonata (“the rental car”) from Avis Rent-A-Car System, LLC (Avis). Pursuant to the rental agreement, Shazier was the only person authorized to drive the rental car. The rental agreement provided in pertinent part:

NO ADDITIONAL OPERATORS ARE AUTHORIZED OR PERMITTED WITHOUT AVIS' PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE RENTAL AGREEMENT OR APPLICABLE STATE LAW.

* * *

15. Prohibited Use of the Car. Certain uses of the car and other things you or a driver may do, or fail to do, will violate this agreement. A VIOLATION OF THIS PARAGRAPH, WHICH INCLUDES USE OF THE CAR BY AN UNAUTHORIZED DRIVER, WILL AUTOMATICALLY TERMINATE YOUR RENTAL[.]

(Emphasis removed.)

Subsequently, the rental car was involved in an accident while being driven by Tercina Jordan, an unauthorized driver. Six of the passengers in the rental car sustained injuries and one passenger died. The passengers or their...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Mchugh v. Schmachtenberg
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • May 28, 2010
  • Chandler v. GEICO Indem. Co.
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • January 23, 2012
    ...FL, for Respondent.LEWIS, J. Petitioners seek review of the decision of the First District Court of Appeal in Geico Indemnity Co. v. Shazier, 34 So.3d 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), on the basis that it conflicts with the decisions of this Court in Susco Car Rental System of Florida v. Leonard, 11......
  • Garcia v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • August 19, 2015
    ...for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the district court denied. The district court relied in part on Geico Indem. Co. v. Shazier, 34 So.3d 42 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2010), quashed sub nom. Chandler v. Geico Indem. Co., 78 So.3d 1293 (Fla.2011),3 which rejected the implied consent doctr......
1 books & journal articles
  • Chapter § 3.04 RENTAL CARS
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Travel Law
    • Invalid date
    ...rental agency] is liable to the plaintiff pursuant to § 14-514a of the general statute"). Florida: GEICO Indemnity Company v. Shazier, 34 So. 3d 42 (Fla. App. 2010) ("rental car was involved in an accident while being driven by . . . an unauthorized driver. Six of the passengers in rental c......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT