Home Indem. Co. v. Alday
| Citation | 213 So.2d 13 |
| Decision Date | 30 July 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. I--312,I--312 |
| Parties | The HOME INDEMNITY COMPANY, a New York corporation, Appellant, v. Karen ALDAY, by her next friend, Chalmos Alday, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
E. Harper Field (of Keen, O'Kelley & Spitz), Tallahassee, for appellant.
Steve M. Watkins (of Truett & Watkins), Tallahassee, for appellee.
The defendant in an action for declaratory relief has appealed from a final decree entered by the Circuit Court for Gadsden County construing the terms of an automobile insurance policy issued by the defendant.
The primary question presented for our determination in this appeal is whether the said court correctly held that the plaintiff, Karen Alday, is an insured under the terms of the said policy and hence covered by the policy.
To comprehend this judicial issue it is necessary to know the relationship of the persons involved to each other and to the motor vehicle in question, as well as the terms of the said automobile insurance policy.
Karen Alday, the plaintiff, is the minor daughter of Chalmos Alday and his wife Hazel, who is the sister of Otho Whittle. Karen, Hazel, and Whittle reside in the same household with Chalmos. The collision which gave rise to this litigation occurred while an uninsured automobile owned by Whittle was being driven by Karen, apparently with the implied permission of Whittle.
Chalmos Alday and his wife, Hazel, each qualifies as the 'named insured' under the terms of the policy in question, which defines 'named insured' as 'the individual named in Item I of the declarations and also includes his spouse, if a resident of the same household.' Chalmos is named in Item I of the declarations and his wife, Hazel, as aforesaid, resides in the same household. 'Relative' is defined as 'a relative of the named insured who is a resident of the same household.'
One of the critical policy provisions in this case is that which defines 'persons insured' with respect to a non-owned automobile. Included among the 'persons insured' are the named insured and 'any relative, but only with respect to a private passenger automobile or trailer, provided his actual operation or (if he is not operating) the other actual use thereof is with the permission, or reasonably believed to be with the permission of the owner and is within the scope of such permission. * * *'
Another critical provision defines 'non-owned automobile,' which is covered by the insurance under the policy, as meaning 'an automobile or trailer not owned by or furnished for the regular use of either the named insured or any relative, other than a temporary substitute automobile. * * *'
Applying the foregoing provisions of the instant policy to the facts shown in the record before us, we have no difficulty in concluding therefrom that, if the plaintiff was operating a 'non-owned automobile,' she was an insured under the policy, for she is a relative of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DiOrio v. New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co., Inc.
...Co. of N.Y., 250 N.C. 60, 108 S.E.2d 22 (1959); Lontkowski v. Ignarski, 6 Wis.2d 561, 95 N.W.2d 230 (1959); Home Indemnity Co. v. Alday, 213 So.2d 13 (Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1968); Farber v. Great American Insurance Co., 406 F.2d 1228 (7th Cir. The only cases I have found holding to the contrary a......
-
Stuyvesant Ins. Co. v. Butler, 46143
...purportedly conflicts with State Liquor Stores #1 v. United States Fire Insurance Co., 243 So.2d 228 (Fla.App.1, 1971); Home Indemnity Co. v. Alday, 213 So.2d 13 (Fla.App.1, 1968); Continental Casualty Co. v. Borthwick, 177 So.2d 687 (Fla.App.1, 1965); Rakoff v. World Insurance Co., 191 So.......
-
Alabama Farm Bureau Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Preston, 7 Div. 890
...... In August 1967, Magee was sent overseas and Carol and their small child returned to the home of her parents. A second child was born about two weeks after Carol returned to her parents' home. ... Home Indemnity Co. v. Alday, 213 So.2d 13 (Fla.App.1968); Cox v. Santoro, 94 N.J.Super. 319, 228 A.2d 101, aff., 98 N.J.Super. ......
-
Liverzani v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co.
...27, 170 A.2d 588; Ransom v. Fid. & Cas. Co., 250 N.C. 60, 108 S.E.2d 22; Lontkowski v. Ignarski, 6 Wis.2d 561, 95 N.W.2d 230; Home Indem. Co. v. Alday, 213 So.2d 13). Moreover, the record amply demonstrates that the Blazer was furnished or available for Alfred's regular use. During his exam......