Langston v. Personal Service Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 21 November 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-1011,78-1011 |
| Citation | 377 So.2d 993 |
| Parties | Danny LANGSTON, Appellant, v. The PERSONAL SERVICE INSURANCE COMPANY and George Johnson, Jr., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Lee S. Damsker of Gordon & Maney, Tampa, for appellant.
Thomas B. Matthews, Tampa, for appellees.
Appellant Danny Langston appeals a final summary judgment entered in favor of appellees The Personal Service Insurance Company and George Johnson, Jr. We reverse.
Langston was injured in an automobile accident in Florida while riding as a passenger in a motor vehicle operated by Fred Johnson and owned by George Johnson, Jr. The owner, George Johnson, Jr., was the principal on a surety bond issued in Ohio by The Personal Service Insurance Company.
Langston's complaint alleged that the vehicle, operated by Fred Johnson with the permission and consent of George Johnson, Jr., was operated in a negligent and careless manner which caused the collision with another vehicle, injuring Langston. Personal Service filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that the coverage of its surety bond extended only to the personal acts of George Johnson, Jr. and did not extend to cover Fred Johnson's operation of the vehicle. The trial court granted this motion and entered a final summary judgment in appellees' favor.
The first issue is whether George Johnson, Jr. as owner of the subject vehicle, can be held personally liable for its negligent operation by Fred Johnson. Inasmuch as this cause of action sounds in tort and the situs of the accident is in Florida, the owner's liability must be determined according to Florida tort law. Northwestern National Casualty Company v. McNulty, 307 F.2d 432 (5th C.C.A. 1962). Under Florida tort law, a motor vehicle operated on the public highways is a dangerous instrumentality. The owner who entrusts it to another to operate is liable for injury caused by the negligence of the person to whom the vehicle is entrusted. Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson, 80 Fla. 441, 86 So. 629 (1920). Therefore, under Florida law, George Johnson, Jr. could be held personally liable to appellant Langston. This result would not obtain in Ohio where the operator's negligence is not imputed to the owner absent a showing of agency between the two. Trolio v. McLendon, 4 Ohio App.2d 30, 211 N.E.2d 65 (1965), rev'd on other grounds, 224 N.E.2d 117 (Ohio 1967); Hahn v. Ranson, 351 F.Supp. 318 (S.D.Ohio 1972), aff'd 473 F.2d 910 (6th Cir. 1973).
Bearing the possible liability of the principal in mind, we must now determine whether a contractual relationship exists between Personal Service and George Johnson, Jr. which will extend Johnson's liability to his surety. In making this determination, we are obliged to apply the law of the state in which the contract issued, in this case Ohio. Carriers Insurance Company v. LeRoy, 309 So.2d 35, 37 (Fla.3d DCA 1975).
The bond issued by Personal Service states that it is provided in accordance with the coverage defined in Ohio Rev.Code Sections 4509.01 to 4509.73. These sections are included in Ohio's Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act which requires each driver or owner involved in an accident to make a security deposit with the Registrar of Motor Vehicles in an amount sufficient to satisfy any judgment for damages resulting from the accident. Ohio Rev.Code Section 4509.12. Failure to meet this security requirement subjects the owner or driver to loss of driver's license and suspension of registration on all vehicles owned by that person. Ohio Rev.Code Section 4509.17. These security and suspension sections Do not apply if the driver or owner has "in effect at the time of the accident either an automobile liability policy or bond with respect to the motor vehicle in the accident . . . ." Ohio Rev.Code Section 4509.19. The bond alternative chosen by Mr. Johnson, Jr. states in paragraph 6:
It is expressly agreed that this bond is given to comply with the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act, Sections 4509.1 to 4509.73, Revised Code of Ohio, and nothing herein contained shall be construed to extend the liability of the Surety under the provisions of said Act.
Section 4509.60 provides:
. . . (A)nd the lien shall exist in favor of Any holder of a final judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Union Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Troxtell
...3d DCA 1980), rev. denied sub nom American Hardware Mut. Ins. Co. v. Contreras, 402 So.2d 607 (Fla.1981); Langston v. Personal Service Insurance Co., 377 So.2d 993 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). This doctrine applies even if the lessee/permittee violates explicit instructions by the owner, P & H Vehic......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Reis, 1D05-576.
...contract law, and it also properly offers no argument that Florida tort law need be considered. See, e.g., Langston v. Personal Service Ins. Co., 377 So.2d 993 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). The standard of review in construing this insurance contract is de novo. Management Computer Controls, Inc. v. ......