Grant v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co.

Decision Date23 June 1994
Docket NumberNo. 82260,82260
Citation638 So.2d 936
Parties19 Fla. L. Weekly S333 Michael GRANT, Petitioner, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Respondent.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

R. Fred Lewis of Magill & Lewis, P.A., Miami, and McCollem and D'Espies, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner.

James K. Clark and Frances F. Guasch of Clerk, Sparkman, Robb & Nelson, Miami, for respondent.

McDONALD, Senior Justice.

We have for review Grant v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 620 So.2d 778 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), which conflicts with Petersen v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 615 So.2d 181 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution. We approve Grant and disapprove Petersen.

Michael Grant was involved in an accident when the motorcycle owned and operated by him collided with an uninsured motorist. Grant's insurance policy with State Farm listed a 1978 Corvette as the only insured vehicle. State Farm denied uninsured motorist coverage based upon the following exclusion:

When Coverage U3 Does Not Apply

THERE IS NO COVERAGE:

....

3. FOR BODILY INJURY TO AN INSURED WHILE OCCUPYING A MOTOR VEHICLE OWNED BY YOU, YOUR SPOUSE, OR ANY RELATIVE IF IT IS NOT INSURED FOR THIS COVERAGE UNDER THIS POLICY.

In the preface of the policy, a "car" is defined as a "land motor vehicle with four or more wheels, which is designed for use mainly on public roads." In the section entitled "Section II-No-Fault-Coverage P and Medical Payment-Coverage C," the policy defines a "motor vehicle" as

a vehicle with four or more wheels that: 1. is self-propelled and is of a type: a. designed for, and b. required to be licensed for use on Florida highways.

The section of the policy dealing with uninsured motor vehicle coverage does not contain any other definitions of a car or motor vehicle.

Section 324.021(1), Florida Statutes (1991), also known as the Financial Responsibility Act, defines motor vehicle as "every self-propelled vehicle which is designed and required to be licensed for use upon a highway." In comparison, section 627.732, Florida Statutes (1991), pertaining to PIP coverage, defines motor vehicle as "any self-propelled vehicle with four or more wheels which is of a type both designed and required to be licensed for use on the highways of this state." The trial court held that the term "motor vehicle" as used in the uninsured motorist section of the policy included motorcycles. Accordingly, the trial court granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment and found that Grant was not entitled to uninsured motorist benefits. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed.

Grant contends that he is entitled to uninsured motorist coverage because the No-Fault section of the policy defines a motor vehicle as a vehicle with four or more wheels. Grant also points out that the definition of motor vehicle in section 627.732, Florida Statutes (1991), pertaining to PIP coverage, defines a motor vehicle as one with four wheels. State Farm argues that the definition of motor vehicle found in section 324.021(1), Florida Statutes (1991), the Financial Responsibility Law, is the applicable definition. We agree.

Generally, courts will strive to interpret an automobile insurance policy based on the definitions contained within the policy. However, if the definition provided in one section of the policy is not applicable to the coverage at issue in another section, courts may be compelled to search elsewhere...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Gomez v. Allied Prof'ls Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • May 6, 2020
    ...in another section, courts may be compelled to search elsewhere for a sensible and appropriate definition." Grant v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. , 638 So. 2d 936, 937 (Fla. 1994) (determining that definition used in one section of automobile policy "is not relevant to the exclusions discussi......
  • State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hassen
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • February 1, 1995
    ...with reference to this specific statute so that its provisions became an integral part of the contract. Grant v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 638 So.2d 936 (Fla.1994). Under one clause of the uninsured motorist provisions of the policy, the Hassens and State Farm also clearly and unambig......
  • GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Gonzalez
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • May 10, 2021
    ...circumstances arise, “courts may be compelled to search elsewhere for a sensible and appropriate definition, ” including Florida statutes. Id. (determining that definition used in one section automobile policy “is not relevant to the exclusions discussion” in a different section of the poli......
  • GE Med. Sys. S.C.S. v. SYMX Healthcare Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • March 3, 2021
    ...contained within the contract." Fla. Inv. Grp. 100, LLC v. Lafont, 271 So. 3d 1, 5 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (citing Grant v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 638 So. 2d 936, 937 (Fla. 1994)). "Where the parties to a contract take pains to define a key term specially, their dealings under the contract......
  • 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