Reliance Ins. Co. v. Maryland Cas. Co.
| Decision Date | 11 July 1984 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 83-1616,83-2725,s. 83-1616 |
| Parties | RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY and Bob Salmon, Inc., Appellants, v. MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, B.A.T. Pipeline, Inc. and Sean Franklin Kingman, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Scott N. Richardson of Magill, Reid & Lewis, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellants.
Rosemary Cooney of Paxton, Crow, Bragg & Austin, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellees.
This appeal arises out of a coverage dispute between Reliance Insurance Company (Reliance) and Maryland Casualty Company (Maryland) in which the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Maryland.
Appellant Bob Salmon, Inc. (Salmon) owned an automobile covered by a policy of insurance issued by Reliance. Salmon leased this automobile to appellee B.A.T. Pipeline, Inc. (BAT) by oral agreement. BAT had automobile coverage with appellee Maryland. Appellee Kingman, an employee of BAT, while driving the automobile during the course and scope of his employment, was involved in an accident causing personal injuries. The injured person sued the parties to this appeal who in turn cross-claimed against each other.
Each cross-claim asserted that the other's policy provided primary insurance coverage and requested indemnification. Reliance concedes that its coverage is primary to the extent of the minimum coverage required by the Financial Responsibility Law ($10,000) but insists that Maryland's policy covers amounts in excess of $10,000. Maryland claims that Reliance's primary coverage extended to the full limit of its policy.
The parties do not dispute the facts. The only question presented concerns the proper interpretation of Section 627.7263, Florida Statutes (1981);
(1) The valid and collectible liability insurance or personal injury protection insurance providing coverage for the lessor of a motor vehicle for rent or lease shall be primary unless otherwise stated in bold type on the face of the rental or lease agreement. Such insurance shall be primary for the limits of liability and personal injury protection coverage as required by ss. 324.021(7) and 627.736.
(2) Each rental or lease agreement between the lessee and the lessor shall contain a provision on the face of the agreement, stated in bold type, informing the lessee of the provisions of subsection (1) and shall provide a space for the lessee's insurance company's name if the lessor's insurance is not to be primary.
Reliance contends that the last sentence of subsection (1) requires the lessor to provide primary coverage for only $10,000, the minimum amount of liability insurance required by sections 324.021(7) and 627.736, Florida Statutes.
Section 627.7263, Florida Statutes (Supp.1976), provided that the lessee's insurance would be primary unless shifted to the lessor by the means set forth in subsection (2) thereof. Chapter 77-468, Laws of Florida amended this section to its current form, providing for the lessor to supply the primary coverage unless the burden is properly shifted. We construe this statute as an attempt by the legislature to make certain that in a lease situation, one of the parties will be responsible for compliance with the personal injury protection coverage as required by Section 324.021(7),...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rao v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co.
...insurance was valid). See also Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Chappell, 246 So.2d 498 (Miss.1971), and Reliance Ins. Co. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 453 So.2d 854 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1984), aff'd 478 So.2d 1068 Florida decisions have also permitted a lessor to provide lower coverage for lessees. E.g. Le......
-
Allstate Ins. Co. of Canada v. Value Rent-A-Car of Florida, Inc.
...the statute (§ 627.7263) specifically so provides, as the Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled in Reliance Insurance Company v. Maryland Casualty Company, 453 So.2d 854 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), but because of the "common law principle that fault attracts primary responsibility." Insurance Comp......
-
Cole v. Southeastern Fidelity Ins. Co., 84-1429
...Ray v. Earl, 277 So.2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973), cert. denied, 280 So.2d 685 (Fla.1973). In contrast, Reliance Ins. Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 453 So.2d 854 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), review granted (Fla. Case no. 65-873) [10 FLW April 5, 1985], incorrectly overlooks the former consideration, and......
-
McCue v. Diversified Services, Inc.
...Atlas Rent A Car, Inc., 585 So.2d 1084, 1086 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), rev. denied, 598 So.2d 75 (Fla.1992); Reliance Ins. Co. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 453 So.2d 854, 855-56 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), approved, 478 So.2d 1068 (Fla.1985); Patton v. Lindo's Rent-A-Car, Inc., 415 So.2d 43, 45 (Fla. 2d DCA We......