Harmon v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 13 February 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 69--85,69--85 |
| Citation | 232 So.2d 206 |
| Parties | David W. HARMON, Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, and Spencer Bokor, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bucklew, Ramsey & Stichter, Tampa, for appellant.
E. Robert Miller, Jr., of Miller & McKendree, Tampa, Luke R. Kaleel, St. Petersburg, and L. David Shear of Brown, Dixon & Shear, Tampa, for appellees.
The lower court dismissed plaintiff-appellant's amended complaint for declaratory judgment arising out of an accident with an uninsured motorist. The amended complaint sought to establish the coverage and liability of the appellee insurance company under the uninsured motorist provisions of its insurance policy.
Appellee Spencer Bokor owned a certain automobile which was insured by the appellee insurance company. The policy contained, under Insuring Agreement III, uninsured automobile coverage. On January 9, 1968, the automobile was being driven by Bokor's minor son, Michael Bokor, with appellant's minor son, Mylo Wayne Harmon, riding as a guest passenger. Appellant's amended complaint alleged that one Ralph George Martin carelessly and negligently operated his vehicle and collided with the automobile operated by Michael Bokor, in which the son of the appellant was riding as a passenger. As a result of the accident, appellant's son was killed. The amended complaint further alleged that Ralph George Martin was uninsured and therefore was an uninsured motorist within the terms of the policy.
Appellant received payment of the full policy limits from his insurance company under the uninsured motorist coverage of his policy. However, that amount was insufficient to compensate him for his damages resulting from the death of his son. Appellant then made a demand for payment from State Farm under the terms of appellee Bokor's policy. Appellant's son was an insured under that policy by virtue of the Definitions section of Insuring Agreement III:
'Insured--The unqualified word 'insured' means (2) any other person while occupying an insured automobile;'
State Farm advised the attorney for appellant that it had already paid out to other insureds the total of its liability, or $20,000. In effect, State Farm denied the claim.
The question this case presents appears to be one of first impression, and was framed as follows by the trial judge in his order dismissing appellant's amended complaint:
'Whether an insurance company may settle with two insureds in the full amount of the policy limits, thereby exhausting the limits of the policy to the exclusion of another insured under the uninsured motorist provisions of said policy.'
Appellant contends that he is in a much different position as an insured under the policy than a third-party claimant against a liability insurer. As an insured, appellant contends that State Farm owes him a duty not to settle with other insureds, thereby exhausting its policy limits and excluding him without his knowledge or consent. Where the insurance company does so, appellant urges that such payments should be viewed merely as voluntary contributions to the other insureds, not to be charged against the policy limits, and not to affect his rights and remedies in any way. Although this argument is appealing, after careful consideration of this case, we must disagree with appellant.
Section 627.0851(1) of the Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides that policies of automobile liability insurance must include 'protection of persons * * * who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles because of bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death, resulting therefrom;' unless affirmatively rejected. This statute embodied the public policy of the state that every insured, as defined in the insurance policy, could recover under the policy for damages he would have been able to recover from the wrongdoing motorist, Had that motorist maintained a policy of liability insurance. Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Powell, 206 So.2d 244, 246 (Fla.App.1968). See also Tuggle v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 207 So.2d 674, 675 (Fla.1968); Davis v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, 172 So.2d 485, 486 (Fla.App.1965).
This statute was enacted to place an insured under a policy of automobile liability insurance, who is injured as a result of the wrongdoing of an uninsured motorist, in the same position as if that uninsured motorist had maintained a policy of liability...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Texas Farmers Ins. Co. v. Soriano
...OF LIABILITY INSURANCE §§ 21.01-21.06; Voccio v. Reliance Ins. Co., 703 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1983); Harmon v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 232 So.2d 206, 207-208 (Fla.Ct.App.1970); Haas v. Mid America Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 35 Ill.App.3d 993, 343 N.E.2d 36, 38 (1976); Castoreno v. We......
-
Tig Ins. Co. v. Smart School
...process. Gen. Sec. Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Marsh, 303 F.Supp.2d 1321, 1325 (M.D.Fla.2004) (citing Farinas and Harmon v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 232 So.2d 206 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)). In the instant case, Smart School has responded to TIG's motion for judgment by pointing to only two facts whi......
-
Texas Farmers Ins. Co. v. Soriano
...305 P.2d 823, 827-28 (1957); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Evans, 200 Ga.App. 713, 409 S.E.2d 273, 274 (1991); Harmon v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 232 So.2d 206, 207-8 (Fla.App.1970); State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Murphy, 38 Ill.App.3d 709, 348 N.E.2d 491, 493-4 (1976); Negro......
-
Baxter v. Royal Indem. Co., 44842
...Union Ins. Co., 250 So.2d 259 (Fla.1971); Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. McNulty, 229 So.2d 585 (Fla.1969).4 Harmon v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 232 So.2d 206 (Fla.App.2d 1970); Continental Ins. Co. v. Wallace, 233 So.2d 195 (Fla.App.3d 1970); Standard Accident Ins. Co. v. Gavin, 184......
-
Ending Duty To Defend: Exhaustion Of Policy Limits By Settlement Of Less Than All Suits
...have consistently allowed insurers to settle on the basis of "first come, first served"); Harmon v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 232 So. 2d 206, 208 (Fla. 2d DCA World Trade Ctr. Props. LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, supra; David v. Bauman, 24 Misc.2d 67, 196 N.Y.S.2d ......
-
Florida's new good faith duty on an insurer not to settle.
...summary judgment relying on the decades-old, established rule, first adopted in Florida by Harmon v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 232 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970). (3) There, the Second District held that an insurer can settle some claims, even where such a settlement exhausts policy li......