Perez v. Michigan Mut. Ins. Co., 98-820.
| Decision Date | 18 November 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 98-820.,98-820. |
| Citation | 723 So.2d 849 |
| Parties | Hector PEREZ, Jr., Appellant, v. MICHIGAN MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Angones, Hunter, McClure, Lynch & Williams and Christopher Lynch, Miami, for appellant.
Cabaniss, McDonald, Smith & Wiggins, P.A., and Ronald E. Cabaniss, and Michelle M. Perez-Sotolongo, Orlando, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and GERSTEN and GREEN, JJ.
This is an appeal from a final summary judgment in favor of the appellee, Michigan Mutual Insurance Company ("Michigan Mutual"), in which the trial court found that the appellant, Hector Perez ("Perez"), a retail lessee of one of Michigan Mutual's insured lessors, was not entitled to uninsured motorist ("UM") coverage under it's policy of insurance. We reverse upon our conclusion that Perez was entitled to such coverage under the plain and unambiguous terms of the personal auto policy section and was entitled to medical payments insurance.
Perez leased a Jaguar automobile from Jaguar Cars, Incorporated, a subsidiary of Ford Motor Company ("Ford"). Ford was the named insured under a policy written by Michigan Mutual. On April 15, 1995, while driving the leased vehicle, Perez was involved in a car accident with Jacqueline Reigosa ("Reigosa"), an uninsured motorist, and he sustained injuries. At the time, Perez was personally insured for UM coverage with National Continental Insurance ("National"). As a result of this accident, Perez filed an action against Reigosa as well as National. Perez later discovered Ford's policy with Michigan Mutual, and as a result, he brought this action against Michigan Mutual claiming that its policy provided UM coverage and medical payments coverage to him as the lessee of the Jaguar vehicle. Michigan Mutual's policy contains three separate categories of coverage: general commercial liability, business auto, and personal auto coverage. In granting summary judgment, the lower court found that none of these sections afforded coverage to Perez. Although we agree that UM coverage for Perez was excluded under the plain language of the business auto section of the policy,1 we find that UM and medical payments coverage was afforded to Perez under the personal auto policy section.
The personal auto policy section, insures "Ford Motor Company, its subsidiaries and any person to whom an automobile has been assigned to, leased or loaned." (emphasis added). Therefore under this section, Perez, as a person to whom an automobile was leased to, is an insured. The UM provision provides that Michigan Mutual is obligated to pay damages which an "insured is legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of a uninsured motor vehicle." (emphasis added). Coverage under the UM section is provided to the "[t]he named insured shown in the declarations." Additionally, since...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tobin v. Michigan Mut. Ins. Co.
...of the policy. The court further acknowledged that a Florida intermediate appellate decision in Perez v. Michigan Mutual Ins. Co., 723 So.2d 849 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1999), held that a retail lessee of Ford was covered by the same Michigan Mutual policy at issue The Florida court in Perez empha......
-
Tobin v. Michigan Mut. Ins. Co.
...under the terms of the insurance contract based upon the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal in Perez v. Michigan Mutual Insurance Co., 723 So.2d 849 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), which was predicated upon the determination that persons in the position of these claimants are "named insured......
-
Tobin v. Michigan Mut. Ins. Co.
...at issue here. Id. at 1270. The district court concluded that a Florida intermediate appellate decision, Perez v. Michigan Mutual Insurance Co., 723 So.2d 849 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1998), compelled the conclusion that plaintiffs were covered by the policy as written. Tobin I, 398 F.3d at 1271-73......