Lynch-Davidson Motors v. Griffin, LYNCH-DAVIDSON
| Decision Date | 05 January 1966 |
| Docket Number | LYNCH-DAVIDSON,No. 34269,34269 |
| Citation | 182 So.2d 7 |
| Parties | MOTORS, a corporation, Petitioner, v. Norman Delano GRIFFIN, a minor, by his guardian ad litem, J. Elworth Griffin, J. Elworth Griffin, individually, and Martha D. Griffin, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Lawrence Sands, of Howell, Kirby, Montgomery & Sands, Daytona Beach, for petitioner.
Marion R. Shepard, of Mathews, Osborne & Ehrlich, Jacksonville, for respondents.
This cause is before the court on 'direct conflict' certiorari to review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District. See Lynch-Davidson Motors v. Griffin, Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 911.
In the decision here reviewed the appellate court interpreted the Financial Responsibility Law of 1955, Chapter 324, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., as applicable to all automobile liability insurance policies issued on Florida vehicles and held, in effect, that the minimum financial responsibility requirements specified in Section 324.151 of the Act must be read into and become a part of each such policy regardless of whether such policy was taken out voluntarily by the insured before being involved in an accident, or whether such policy was taken out or furnished as proof of financial responsibility after an accident in compliance with Section 324.031(1) of the Act. This holding runs head on into the decision of this court in Jefferson Insurance Co. v. Fischer, Fla.1964, 166 So.2d 129, and that of the Second District Court of Appeal in Hodapp v. Shelby Mutual Ins. Co., Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 772.
The decisions in the cited cases were handed down in recognition of the fact--which cannot be questioned--that our Financial Responsibility Law, like that of many other states, does not provide for compulsory liability insurance as a condition precedent to owning or operating a motor vehicle. Every owner or operator of a motor vehicle is allowed one 'free' accident (that is, one uninsured accident--although he must, of course, respond in damages, from what assets he owns, for injuries to persons or property for which he is legally liable). The sanctions or compulsions of the Financial Responsibility Law are not invoked unless and until the owner or operator is involved in an accident; until that occurs, he is at liberty to own or operate a motor vehicle without any insurance coverage whatsoever, or with as little coverage as desired. That this is the legislative intention is abundantly clear from the stated purpose of the Act--to require an owner or operator of a motor vehicle involved in an accident to 'show proof of financial ability to respond for damages in future accidents as a requisite to his future exercise of such privileges'--(emphasis added) Sec. 324.011, F.S.A. See also a clarifying amendment to Section 324.151, adopted at the 1965 session of the Legislature, Ch. 65-489, Acts of 1965, stating in unambiguous terms that
'(2) The provisions of this section shall not be applicable to any automobile liability policy unless and until it is furnished as proof of financial responsibility for the future pursuant to section 324.031, and then only from and after the date said policy is so furnished.'
The respondents concede that the appellate court's decision brought here for review conflicts with the decisions of this court and the Second District Court of Appeal, supra, in the respect discussed above, but contend that the 'conformity' clause of the subject insurance policy...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vargas v. Enterprises Leasing Co.
...by an accident or an adverse judgment, which was a condition of operating or registering a motor vehicle. In Lynch-Davidson Motors v. Griffin, 182 So.2d 7, 8 (Fla.1966), the Florida Supreme Court described the operation of Florida's financial responsibility law and acknowledged its similari......
-
Garcia v. Vanguard Car Rental Usa, Inc., No. 07-12235.
...or, as in Florida, after a motorist has been involved in an accident. See Fla. Stat. § 324.011; see also Lynch-Davidson Motors v. Griffin, 182 So.2d 7, 8 (Fla. 1966). 3. See; e.g., United States v. Pipkins, 378 F.3d 1281, 1295 (11th Cir.2004) (suggesting pagers, telephones, and the Internet......
-
Ohmes v. Ohmes
...Proser v. Berger, Fla.App.1961, 132 So.2d 439; General Development Corp. v. Catlin, Fla.App.1962, 139 So.2d 901; Lynch-Davidson Motors v. Griffin, Fla.1965, 182 So.2d 7. Therefore, the terms and provisions of Sec. 65.15 were a component part of the Settlement Agreement But as to another asp......
-
Coastal Caisson Drill Co., Inc. v. American Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa.
...1291 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). See also Lynch-Davidson Motors v. Griffin, 171 So.2d 911 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965), quashed on other grounds, 182 So.2d 7 (Fla.1966). For example, in Asbury Arms, the court found that a statute establishing a cooling-off period during which condominium buyers could void t......