Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Burak

Decision Date24 July 1979
Docket NumberNos. 79-221,78-2412,s. 79-221
Citation373 So.2d 89
PartiesGOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Appellant, v. Barry BURAK, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Lane, Mitchell & Harris and Byron B. Mathews, Jr., for appellant.

Stuart S. Heller and Andrew C. Pavlick, Miami, for appellee.

Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., and KEHOE and SCHWARTZ, JJ.

SCHWARTZ, Judge.

The uninsured motorist provisions of the appellant-GEICO's insurance policy defined "uninsured automobile" as including an automobile

"(W)ith respect to which there is a(n) . . . insurance policy applicable at the time of the accident but the company writing the same is Or becomes insolvent . . ." (emphasis supplied)

The trial court ruled that the emphasized language, which places no limitation as to the time within which the tortfeasor's insurer must become insolvent, constitutes a statutorily authorized expansion of the UM coverage required by Section 627.727(3), Florida Statutes (1973) 1 which provides:

An insurer's insolvency protection shall be applicable only to accidents occurring during a policy period in which its insured's uninsured motorist coverage is in effect when the liability insurer of the tortfeasor becomes insolvent within 1 year after such an accident. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to prevent any insurer from affording insolvency protection under terms and conditions more favorable to its insureds than is provided hereunder. (emphasis supplied)

We agree with this determination. As we have held in several recent per curiam decisions involving identical provisions, Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Morales, 371 So.2d 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Robertson, 369 So.2d 454 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp., Ltd. v. Builes, 370 So.2d 863 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), GEICO's policy affords UM insolvency protection whenever the tortfeasor's company becomes insolvent, even if that date is More than one year after the accident. See also Moore v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co., 277 So.2d 839, 842 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), cert. denied, 291 So.2d 204 (Fla.1974); compare Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Mirth, 333 So.2d 545 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). The judgment under review, which embodies this conclusion, 2 is therefore

Affirmed.

1 This subsection has been renumbered as 627.727(4 ), Fla.Stat. (1977).

2 The trial judge also correctly held that the policy's expanded coverage on this issue was not affected by what was merely a superfluous and immaterial "Florida exception" to the UM coverage which stated:

"...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Utah Property & Casualty Ins. etc. Assn. v. United Services Auto. Assn.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 29 May 1991
    ...(former § 627.0851(3) (Fla.Stat.Ann.1961), identical except for numbering to former § 627.727(3), construed in Government Emp. Ins. Co. v. Burak (Fla.App.1979) 373 So.2d 89 [see post ] ) unconstitutionally impaired freedom of contract or denied equal protection and due process of law. (250 ......
  • Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. LEVINE & PARTNERS, PA
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 4 June 2003
    ...Co., 276 So.2d 6 (Fla.1973)(conflict with same insuring agreement must be resolved in favor of insured); Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Burak, 373 So.2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)(same). Finally, the clause has no effect on the applicable statute of limitations for bringing suit on the policy ......
  • North Carolina Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 2 August 1994
    ...Co., 689 S.W.2d 32 (Ky.Ct.App.1985); Thomas v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 485 N.W.2d 298 (Iowa 1992); Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Burak, 373 So.2d 89 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1979). See generally Alan I. Widiss, Uninsured and Underinsured Motorist Insurance, § 8.16, at 385 (2d ed. 1992), f......
  • Ideal Mut. Ins. Co. v. C. D. I. Const., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 25 March 1981
    ...v. U. S. Fidelity & Guar., 357 So.2d 253 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1978). The same rule applies to conflicting provisions. Government Emp. Ins. Co. v. Burak, 373 So.2d 89 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1979). However, where the terms are clear and unambiguous or only one logical interpretation consistent with the inten......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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