Sembric v. Allstate Ins. Co., 81-470
| Decision Date | 15 June 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-470,81-470 |
| Citation | 434 So.2d 963 |
| Parties | Michael A. SEMBRIC, Appellant/Cross Appellee, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee/Cross Appellant. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Joe N. Unger of Law Offices of Joe N. Unger, P.A., Miami, and John J. Bulfin of
Pomeroy, Betts, Wiederhold & Moses, West Palm Beach, for appellant/cross appellee.
D. David Keller of Bunnell, Denman & Woulfe, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee/cross appellant.
This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial because the manifest weight of the evidence precluded the jury from finding that a nephew was entitled to coverage under his uncle's automobile insurance policy. We affirm with a modification.
The nephew suffered injuries as a result of an accident while a passenger on a motorcycle and sought uninsured motorist coverage through his uncle's insurance policy with Allstate. Under the terms of the policy, Allstate had agreed to insure against liability incurred either by the named insured or by a relative of the named insured if both were residents of the same household. At the time of the accident, the nephew was living in a house owned by his uncle in Boca Raton, Florida, but Allstate denied coverage nevertheless contending that his uncle was not a resident of the Boca Raton house, only visited it occasionally and was in fact a resident of Cleveland, Ohio.
Subsequently, the insurance company brought a cause of action for declaratory relief to determine its rights and liabilities under the policy. The nephew counterclaimed alleging entitlement to uninsured motorist coverage, the cause went to trial and the jury determined that the nephew was entitled to the uninsured motorist coverage. Thereafter, the trial court granted Allstate's motion for a new trial.
The sole question meriting discussion is whether a policy with a resident family household member provision, requires that those members of the "household" dwell or live together on a permanent basis. See Griffin v. General Guaranty Ins. Co., 254 So.2d 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). We answer in the affirmative.
Here, the record clearly demonstrates that the nephew and the uncle did not dwell in the same household on a permanent basis. It is clear that the uncle never visited the Boca Raton home more than seven weeks out of any one year. Moreover for the past twenty years, the uncle has worked and lived in Cleveland forty five weeks each...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. v. Williams
...and uncle stayed in same house seven weeks out of year. Jury verdict in favor of insured reversed and rendered. Sembric v. Allstate Ins. Co., 434 So.2d 963 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1983). Court ruled child not resident of father's household, although parents only separated for two months. Ursin v. ......
-
Vaiarella v. Hanover Ins. Co.
...322. The plaintiff's husband obtained a Florida driver's license and registered their car in Florida, see Sembric v. Allstate Ins. Co., 434 So.2d 963, 964 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1983); Dairyland, supra 123 Mich.App. at 682, 333 N.W.2d 322, although the weight of this factor is somewhat diminished......
-
Still v. Fox
...101, 621 N.E.2d 887, jurisdictional motion overruled (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 1438, 617 N.E.2d 688. Additionally, in Sembric v. Allstate Ins. Co. (Fla.App.1983), 434 So.2d 963, review denied (1984), 443 So.2d 980, a Florida court held that an uncle who lived in Ohio but visited a nephew in Flo......
-
Alava By and Through Alava v. Allstate Ins. Co., 85-2818
...distinguishable cases to support its contention that Ernesto was not a resident of his father's house. In Sembric v. Allstate Insurance Co., 434 So.2d 963 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), review denied, 443 So.2d 980 (Fla.1984), the court held that an uncle, who had lived in Ohio for twenty years, paid......