Newman v. National Indem. Co., 70--39
| Decision Date | 09 February 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 70--39,70--39 |
| Citation | 245 So.2d 118 |
| Parties | Lucele NEWMAN, as Administratrix of the Estate of Edward Newman, deceased, and Allstate Insurance Company, Appellants, v. NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Hortense Green and Louis Green, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Adams, George & Wood, and David L. Willing, Miami, for appellants.
Carey, Dwyer, Austin, Cole & Selwood, and Edward A. Perse, Miami, for appellees.
Before PEARSON, C.J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.
This is an appeal from a final judgment entered in a suit seeking declaratory judgment as to the extent of coverage under an automobile insurance policy containing a 'family-household' exclusion and a 'severability of interest' clause.
Defendant-appellees Louis Green and his wife Hortense Green, both residents of the same household, were injured while passengers in an automobile owned by Louis Green. Edward Newman, deceased, ('Driver') operated this automobile with Green's knowledge and consent. Louis Green was also the 'named insured' of an automobile insurance policy issued by defendant-appellee National Indemnity Company ('National'). Because of injuries received by the Greens, they sued the driver, Newman.
Plaintiff-appellant Lucele Newman, widow of Edward Newman, the driver, was named administratrix of his estate. She sought a declaration that the National policy issued to Louis Green, the car owner and named insured, required National to defend Driver against the claims of Louis and Hortense Green.
Plaintiff-appellant Lucele Newman contends that: the driver qualifies as an 'omnibus insured' under the policy because he drove with the owner's permission; the 'family-household' exclusion does not extend to an 'omnibus insured' driver who is neither related to the named insured and his wife nor a member of the named insured's household; and the 'severability of interest' clause limits the scope of the 'family-household' exclusion.
The subject policy of insurance issued to Louis Green as named insured, was in full force and effect at all relevant times. In pertinent part it provides:
'* * * (The Company) Agrees with the insured, named in the declarations made a part hereof, * * * subject to the limits of liability, exclusions, conditions and other terms of this policy:
'INSURING AGREEMENTS
'1. Coverage A--Bodily Injury Liability: To pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury * * * sustained by any person, caused by accident and arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the automobile.
'Coverage B--Property Damage Liability: To pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of injury to or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...P.2d 914 (1969); Newark Insurance Co. v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., 164 Colo. 498, 436 P.2d 353 (1968); Newman v. National Indemnity Company, 245 So.2d 118 (Fla.App.1971); Banner Insurance Company v. Avella, 128 Ill.App.2d 471, 262 N.E.2d 791 (1970); Hebert v. North British and Mercan......
-
Auto Owners Ins. Co. v. Van Gessel
...members of the insured's family or household are valid. 46 A.L.R.3d 1024. This is also the rule in Florida. Newman v. National Indemnity Company, 245 So.2d 118 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); see also Zipperer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 254 F.2d 853 (5th Cir.1958). The reason for the exc......
-
Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Fitzgibbon, 89-1058
...injured as passengers in the car are still barred from liability coverage by the family exclusion clause. See Newman v. National Indemnity Co., 245 So.2d 118 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). Fitzgibbon argues that since she is barred from recovery under the liability provisions of GEICO's policy, she sh......
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Baker, 87-3126
...(Fla.1977), Larsen v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 485 So.2d 458 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), and Newman v. National Indemnity Company, 245 So.2d 118 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). The exclusion has been generally accepted as a valid policy provision because it protects the insurer from "ov......