Hausler v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 01 August 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-1454,78-1454 |
| Citation | 374 So.2d 1037 |
| Parties | Kevin R. HAUSLER and Karen H. Hausler, his wife, Appellants, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Foreign Corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Roland J. Lamb and Irene Sullivan of the law offices of Harris, Barrett & Dew, St. Petersburg, for appellants.
William C. Kaleel, Jr. and Sheldon Phillips of Kaleel & Kaleel, P. A., St. Petersburg, for appellee.
Appellee State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company issued and delivered an automobile insurance policy to Kevin Hausler on May 31, 1976. The policy insured, among other things, a 1971 Chevrolet owned by Hausler and further included a provision for uninsured motorist coverage. While operating his Kawasaki motorcycle, Hausler was involved in an accident with a hit and run motor vehicle. Hausler's motorcycle was covered by a liability policy issued by another company. The motorcycle policy did not provide uninsured motorist benefits. Hausler filed a claim with State Farm for payment of proceeds under the uninsured motorist provision of the Chevrolet policy. State Farm refused to honor the claim, asserting that Section 627.4132, the anti-stacking provision of the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act, precluded recovery. The trial court entered a final order dismissing Hausler's cause of action with prejudice. It is from this final order that Hausler appeals.
In their briefs the parties argue the issue of the definition of "vehicle" as used in Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (1977). We find that it is unnecessary to address this point because Section 627.4132 does not apply to this case. The policy in question was issued and delivered a month before the governor signed Section 627.4132 into law and four months before it became effective on October 1, 1976. Although the accident which fostered this dispute occurred on March 15, 1977, it is not the accident date that controls.
When Hausler and State Farm negotiated for and entered into the subject contract of insurance, its terms were set in accordance with the law in effect at that time which did not preclude stacking insurance coverage. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. White, 330 So.2d 858 (Fla.2d DCA 1976). Neither party was on notice of the limitations soon to be imposed by Section 627.4132.
Article I, Section 10, of the Florida Constitution prohibits the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Am. Suzuki Motor Corp.
...And see Dewberry v. Auto–Owners Insurance Company, 363 So.2d 1077, 1079–1080 (Fla.1978), and Hausler v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 374 So.2d 1037, 1038 (2 D.C.A. Fla., 1979) (where statute in question was not in effect at time of contracting, it cannot be retroactively ......
-
In re Am. Suzuki Motor Corp.
...And see Dewberry v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company, 363 So.2d 1077, 1079-1080 (Fla. 1978), and Hausler v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 374 So.2d 1037, 1038 (2 D.C.A. Fla., 1979) (where statute in question was not in effect at time of contracting, it cannot be retroactively......
-
Moore v. United Services Auto. Ass'n
...the statute and Florida precedent. The law of Florida appears to be well established in Dewberry. Accord, Hausler v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., 374 So.2d 1037 (2d DCA Fla.1979), (operative law at time insurance contract was negotiated and signed incorporated into agreement and control......
- Allegro At Boynton Beach, L. L.C. v. Pearson