Hartland v. Allstate Ins. Co., 90-1789
| Decision Date | 26 February 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-1789,90-1789 |
| Citation | 575 So.2d 290,16 Fla. L. Weekly 607 |
| Parties | 16 Fla. L. Weekly 607 Debra S. HARTLAND, Appellant, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John S. Fagan, Jacksonville, for appellant.
Harris Brown and Reginald Luster of Osborne, McNatt, Cobb, Shaw, O'Hara & Brown, Jacksonville, for appellee.
The appellant was injured in an automobile accident while riding as a passenger in her own automobile. At the time of the accident, a friend of the appellant was driving the automobile with her permission. The appellant, who was a resident of her parents' household, sued the appellee, Allstate Insurance Company, under the uninsured motorist provisions of a policy of insurance issued by the appellee to her parents. The single Allstate policy designated both the appellant's 1981 Plymouth automobile and her parents' 1981 Toyota automobile as insured vehicles. In her complaint, the appellant asserted that she was entitled to recover under the uninsured motorist provisions of the policy because she had been injured due to the negligence of her friend, who was uninsured. The appellee successfully defended the claim on two bases. First, the appellee argued that an award of uninsured motorist benefits under these circumstances would effectively defeat a "family exclusion" provision in the policy which excluded liability for injury to any family member residing with the insureds. Secondly, the appellee relied upon a policy provision which stated that an uninsured automobile could not be a vehicle defined as an insured automobile under the liability portion of the policy. On appeal, the appellant argues that she is entitled to uninsured motorist benefits under the policy coverage provided for her automobile and for her parents' automobile. We disagree, and affirm.
The exclusions from coverage relied upon by the appellee have been consistently upheld, and they have been applied to preclude coverage under circumstances very similar to those presented here. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Dascoli, 497 So.2d 1 (Fla.1986); Reid v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 352 So.2d 1172 (Fla.1977); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Baker, 543 So.2d 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), rev. denied, 554 So.2d 1167 (Fla.1989); Amica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wells, 507 So.2d 750 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); and Harrison v. Metro. Property & Liab. Ins. Co., 475 So.2d 1370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's determination that the appellant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gares v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 03-12700.
...See, e.g., State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Palacino, 562 So.2d 837, 838 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (en banc); Hartland v. Allstate Ins. Co., 575 So.2d 290, 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). But in Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Olah, 662 So.2d 980 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1995) (Quince, J.), the Second District......
-
Brixius v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...benefits would defeat a valid liability exclusion contained in the same policy. 501 So.2d at 751. See also Hartland v. Allstate Ins. Co., 575 So.2d 290 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Accordingly, we approve the decision of the district court below and disapprove the decision of the Fifth District Cou......
-
Hartland v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...Osborne, McNatt, Shaw, O'Hara, Brown & Obringer, Jacksonville, for respondent. PER CURIAM. We have for review Hartland v. Allstate Insurance Co., 575 So.2d 290 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), because of conflict with Jernigan v. Progressive American Insurance Co., 501 So.2d 748 (Fla. 5th DCA), review ......
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Croakman, s. 90-1807
...Insurance Co., 589 So.2d 236 (Fla.1991); Reid v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 352 So.2d 1172 (Fla.1977); Hartland v. Allstate Insurance Co., 575 So.2d 290 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). We must also reverse the award of appellees' attorneys' fees which was dependent upon a judgment in their favor.......