Hanover Ins. Co. v. Bramlitt

• Decision Date: 18 November 1969
• Docket Number: No. K--323,K--323
• Citation: 228 So.2d 288
• Parties: The HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant, v. Louise A. BRAMLITT, Lila T. Epperson, and Progressive Mutual Insurance Company, a corporation, Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 288

228 So.2d 288

The HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant, v. Louise A. BRAMLITT, Lila T. Epperson, and Progressive Mutual Insurance Company, a corporation, Appellees.

No. K--323.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 18, 1969.

Blalock, Holbrook, Lewis, Paul & Bennett, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Carl K. Staas, of Boyd, Jenerette & Leemis, Jacksonville, for appellees.

SPECTOR, Judge.

Appellant, Hanover Insurance Company, and appellee, Progressive Mutual Insurance Company, filed motions for summary judgment in this dispute over insurance coverage. The trial court entered its order denying appellant's motion and granting Progressive Mutual's motion. Reversal of said final judgment is sought by appellant.

The order being reviewed had the effect of holding appellant liable for injuries to its insured appellee, Louise A. Bramlitt, and her passenger appellee, Lila T. Epperson, under the uninsured motorist coverage in the liability policy it had issued to Bramlitt. They sustained said injuries in an accident with a car owned, but not driven, by a Mrs. Stephens who was insured by appellee, Progressive Mutual. Inherent in the trial court's ruling was the holding that a named driver exclusion endorsement attached to Progressive Mutual's policy was valid and operative at the time of the accident. The named driver who was excluded by the endorsement was James Ray Stephens, husband of Progressive Mutual's insured. Said excluded husband was the driver of her car at the time of the accident.

If the named driver exclusion is valid, Progressive Mutual would not be liable for the claims arising while the husband was driving his wife's car and both Mr. and Mrs. Stephens would be uninsured persons as to the claims from the subject accident. Carrying the matter further, such status as uninsured persons would make the uninsured motorist clause in Hanover's policy to Bramlitt applicable. Under those circumstances, Hanover, the appellant, would be required to provide coverage for the injuries sustained by Bramlitt and her passenger to the extent of the limits of the uninsured motorist clause. On the other hand, if Progressive's named driver exclusion clause is invalid, then Progressive would be required to provide coverage and the Stephens would not be classed as uninsured persons and Hanover's uninsured motorist clause would not be applicable.

Thus, the question presented for our determination by this appeal is the validity of the named driver exclusion endorsement described above.

Prior to the Bramlitt accident on August 22, 1965, Mr. Stephens had owned an automobile in his name and he had been issued a liability insurance policy by Progressive Mutual. However, Mr. Stephens' insurance policy was cancelled by Progressive Mutual on January 25, 1965, because of his bad driving record. At the time of this cancellation, the Florida Financial Responsibility Division was notified by Mr. Stephens' carrier. Presumably, this notice was accomplished by the filing of a Form SR-26, the filing of which had the effect of rendering ineffective an earlier Form SR-22 filed by Progressive in Mr. Stephens' behalf as required by Chapter 394, Florida Statutes, as a condition precedent to the continuation of Mr. Stephens' right to operate or own a vehicle operated on the public highways of the State. The record herein indicates that at or about the time Mr. Stephens' insurance policy from Progressive and thus his driving privileges were cancelled, Mrs. Stephens acquired a car for herself and Progressive issued a liability policy to her as the named insured and applicable to her car, a 1960 Chevrolet. Mrs. Stephens' policy was numbered 6Q420289 and provided coverage from January 20, 1965, to January 20, 1966. On January 25, 1965, the said policy was certified to the State on a Form SR-22 as having been issued as required by the financial responsibility laws of the State. At that time of issuance, Mrs. Stephens' policy was not subject to any limitations or restrictions which would have excluded coverage for an accident occurring while her husband was driving. On the contrary, it contained a clause expressly defining the phrase 'named insured' as including the spouse of the named insured.

Therefore, without more, Progressive would have been liable for coverage in an accident occurring while Mr. Stephens, the spouse of the insured, Mrs. Stephens, was driving. But, there was more. On March 22, 1965, Progressive attached an endorsement to Mrs. Stephens' policy stating as follows:

'It is agreed that the insurance afforded by this policy shall not apply with respect to any claim arising from accidents which occur while any automobile is being operated by James Ray Stephens.'

Mrs. Stephens countersigned her acceptance of the above endorsement as part of the insurance policy. It now seems to be the well settled law of this jurisdiction that an automobile liability insurance policy may contain a named driver exclusion clause unless such policy was issued pursuant to a Requirement of the State's financial responsibility law. Bankers & Shippers Ins. Co. of New York v. Phoenix Assurance Co., 210 So.2d 715 (Fla.1968). Speaking of the financial responsibility law, Chapter 324, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., and its applicability, the court said at page 718:

'The Act does not contemplate or require compliance with the Act by an owner or operator of a motor vehicle, so long...