Howard v. American Service Mut. Ins. Co., 62-473
| Decision Date | 02 April 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 62-473,62-473 |
| Citation | 151 So.2d 682,8 A.L.R.3d 382 |
| Parties | John W. HOWARD, Appellant, v. AMERICAN SERVICE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Gay & Anderson, Miami, for appellant.
Papy & Carruthers and Lee E. Weissenborn, Miami, for appellee.
Before CARROLL, HORTON and HENDRY, JJ.
In a prior suit the appellant, Howard, recovered judgments against one Leonard R. Bajnick, a/k/a Bujnicki, the owner of an automobile, and its driver, Richard L. Kellar. The judgments were for injuries sustained by appellant as a result of a collision between appellant's automobile and the automobile owned by Bajnick and operated by Kellar. The judgments being unsatisfied, plaintiff brought this action against the defendant, American Service Mutual, to recover on an automobile liability policy which the defendant had issued to Bajnick, prior to the accident. The trial judge granted a summary final judgment in favor of the defendant upon his finding, as a matter of law, that the policy in question did not cover Bajnick for an accident occurring while the vehicle was being driven by someone other than his immediate family, which Keller was not. While the policy contained a clause 1 stating in part that it 'shall comply with the financial responsibility law of any state or province which shall be applicable', the trial judge determined that the financial responsibility law of Florida was not applicable until after the insured became involved in his first accident and, therefore, such clause in the policy did not extend coverage to conclude this accident. 2 Plaintiff appeals from the summary final judgment.
It is clear that the policy in question did not cover Bajnick while his vehicle was being driven by Kellar unless, under 'Condition 4', our financial responsibility law is applicable and has the effect of broadening the coverage of the policy so as to include liability to the plaintiff from this accident. We so hold.
Basically, § 324.051(2), Fla.Stat., F.S.A., provides for the suspension of operators' licenses and all registrations of the owners of vehicles involved in an automobile accident which has resulted in bodily injury or death to any person or total damage to property of $50,00 or more, unless, among other things, certain security is deposited with the State Treasurer or a release is obtained from all injured parties and there is compliance with § 324.031, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. 3
Further, § 324.121, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. provides for suspension of license and registration if a person fails to satisfy a judgment unless written consent from the judgment creditor is obtained and proof of financial responsibility is furnished according to § 324.031, supra.
Thus, one of the methods of avoiding suspension of an operator's license and the registration of an owner of a vehicle as a result of an accident or failure to satisfy a judgment is by furnishing proof of financial responsibility, as defined in § 324.031, supra. A 'motor vehicle liability policy', in order to constitute proof of financial responsibility, must conform to §§ 324.021(7), 324.021(8) and 324.151(1), Fla.Stat., F.S.A. The last three mentioned sections set forth the amounts of coverage required and the extent of such coverage. As to an owner's liability insurance policy, the coverage must insure the owner named therein and any other person as operator using such vehicle with the express or implied consent of such owner, against loss from the liability imposed by law for damage arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of such vehicle.
If we stopped here, the questions before us would be: (1) whether our financial responsibility law became applicable within the meaning of 'Condition 4' by virtue of the fact that a 'motor vehicle liability policy' will prevent suspension of the insured's license and registration; (2) if so, and the defendant's policy coverage, by its own terms, became extended so as to prevent such suspension, does this broadened coverage apply at the time of the accident so as to cover this liability?
These questions would cause us much difficulty if it were not for the fact that § 324.051, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. also provides that its suspension provision is not even applicable if the owner had in effect at the time of such accident an 'automobile liability policy' with respect to the motor vehicle involved in such accident. If an 'automobile liability policy' must meet the same standards as a 'motor vehicle liability policy', then such full coverage must be in effect at the time of the accident in order preclude the application of such suspension provision. Accordingly, 'Condition 4' of the policy would make said policy comply with certain requirements which become effective before an accident occurs. This is our holding.
In Iszczukiewicz v. Universal Underwriters Inc. Co., 182 F.Supp. 733 (N.D.O.1960), aff'd, 290 F.2d 590 (6th Cir. 1961) the district court was faced with an almost identical question involving the Ohio Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act. The court found that the intent of the legislature was that the definition of 'owner's policy of liability insurance' [this term is defined by the Ohio Act to include the same coverage as required by § 324.151(1) of our statute, and, as in our statute, was required under the definition of a 'motor vehicle liability policy'] should be applied to the term 'automobile liability insurance'. The court pointed out that if it were otherwise, the insured could obtain a policy which would exempt him from the security and suspension provisions and yet failed to cover the particular accident. In other words, a contrary interpretation would defeat the purpose of the Act to recompense the public for injury to person or property caused by the operation of a motor vehicle. Any automobile liability policy, no matter how limited the coverage, taken out prior to the insured's first accident, would preclude the insured from ever having to obtain the type of coverage required as proof of financial responsibility.
The court concluded on page 737, as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commerce Nat. Bank in Lake Worth v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America
...may fairly be given to language used in a policy, the one that allows the greater indemnity will govern. Howard v. American Service Mutual Insurance Co., Fla.App.1963, 151 So.2d 682. In addition to the foregoing principles it is a firmly established rule that an insurer's duty to defend the......
-
New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. Addison
...may fairly be given to language used in a policy, the one that allows the greater indemnity will govern. Howard v. American Service Mut. Ins. Co., Fla.App.,App.1963, 151 So.2d 682. Statement of these principles may be found in 18 Fla.App.,Jur., Insurance, sections 94 and 95, pages 86, 87, 8......
-
Makris v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...Insurance Company of New York v. Phoenix Assurance Company of New York, Fla.1968, 210 So.2d 715; Howard v. American Service Mutual Insurance Company, Fla.App.1963, 151 So.2d 682; and, Lynch-Davidson Motors v. Griffin, Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 911. Conversely, the appellee urges that if the L......
-
Hartman v. American Fidelity Fire Ins. Co., 64-934
...an elaborate discussion of the legal problem presented by this case. For such discussion we refer the reader to this court's opinion in the Howard case, and the opinion of the First District Court of Appeal in the Lynch-Davidson Appellee contends that Jefferson Insurance Company v. Fischer,......