McDonald v. Southeastern Fidelity Ins. Co., 78-1746
| Decision Date | 25 July 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-1746,78-1746 |
| Citation | 373 So.2d 94 |
| Parties | Stuart A. McDONALD, Jr., Appellant, v. SOUTHEASTERN FIDELITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
David A. Maney and S. Robert Mandelbaum of Gordon & Maney, Tampa, for appellant.
W. M. Carson and Gary W. Nicholson of Carson & Guemmer, Tampa, for appellee.
The trial court upheld the validity of a clause in an automobile liability policy excluding uninsured motorist benefits for injuries to an insured while operating a vehicle not listed in the policy. We reverse.
Appellant, Stuart A. McDonald, Jr. (McDonald), was the named insured under an automobile liability policy issued by appellee, Southeastern Fidelity Insurance Company (Southeastern). McDonald's Volkswagen was the only vehicle listed as insured in his policy although McDonald also owned a motorcycle. The policy provided uninsured motorist protection which included specific coverage for bodily injury caused by a "hit-and-run automobile." The policy, however, expressly excluded coverage for "bodily injury to an insured while occupying an automobile (other than an insured automobile) owned by the named insured . . . ."
On May 7, 1976, while riding his motorcycle, McDonald was struck and injured by a hit-and-run automobile. McDonald claimed under the uninsured motorist provisions of his policy. Southeastern denied coverage, whereupon McDonald filed a demand for arbitration. Southeastern responded by petitioning the circuit court for declaratory relief to the effect that McDonald's claim was excluded from coverage because, when injured, he was "occupying an automobile (other than an insured automobile) owned by (him)." The court entered summary judgment in favor of Southeastern stating that "the motor vehicle which (McDonald) was operating at the time of the accident was not listed on said policy as an insured vehicle . . . ." This appeal by McDonald ensued.
Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1975) (amended 1976) provides:
No automobile liability insurance covering liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of any motor vehicle Shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this state Unless coverage is provided therein or supplemental thereto in not less than the limits of the liability insurance purchased by the named insured for bodily injury, (or such lower limits complying with the company's rating plan as may be selected by the named insured,) under provisions filed with and approved by the department, For the protection of persons...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dadeland Depot v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins.
...attorneys' fees on appeal, conditioned, however, on appellant's ultimate recovery in the trial court. See McDonald v. Southeastern Fid. Ins. Co., 373 So.2d 94 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1979). I. The procedural history, facts, and issues of this case are summarized in our previous opinion, published ......
-
Wen-Dic Const. Co., Inc. v. Mainlands Const. Co., Inc.
...for attorney's fees on appeal, conditioned on its ultimately prevailing in the trial court. See, e.g., McDonald v. Southeastern Fidelity Insurance Co., 373 So.2d 94 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Segelstrom v. Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., 233 So.2d 645 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970). I concur in the majority's d......
-
Waitt v. Hanover Ins. Co., 87-1533
...attorney's fees on appeal; conditioned, however, on appellant's ultimate recovery in the trial court. McDonald v. Southeastern Fidelity Ins. Co., 373 So.2d 94, 95 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (citing § 627.428, Fla.Stat. (1977); Dixie Farms, Inc. v. Hertz Corp., 343 So.2d 633 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Hart......