State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Becraft

• Decision Date: 24 December 1986
• Docket Number: 85-1711,Nos. 85-1532,s. 85-1532
• Citation: 12 Fla. L. Weekly 84,501 So.2d 1316
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals
• Parties: 12 Fla. L. Weekly 84 STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Roy W. BECRAFT, et al., Appellees. Harlan R. BECRAFT, a minor, Harlan Becraft, Bonnie Becraft and Roy W. Becraft, Appellants/Cross Appellees, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Appellees/Cross Appellants.

Page 1316

501 So.2d 1316

12 Fla. L. Weekly 84

STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Roy W. BECRAFT, et al., Appellees.

Harlan R. BECRAFT, a minor, Harlan Becraft, Bonnie Becraft and Roy W. Becraft, Appellants/Cross Appellees, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Appellees/Cross Appellants.

Nos. 85-1532, 85-1711.

District Court of Appeal of Florida Fourth District.

Dec. 24, 1986.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 24, 1987.

Frank W. Weathers of Weathers & Seaman, Lantana, for State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. and State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Richard A. Kupfer of Cone, Wagner, Nugent, Johnson, Roth & Romano, P.A., West Palm Beach, for Harlan R. Becraft, Harlan Becraft and Bonnie Becraft.

Larry Klein of Klein & Beranek, P.A., and Easley Massa & Willits, West Palm Beach, for Roy W. Becraft.

DOWNEY, Judge.

These consolidated appeals arise out of litigation resulting from injuries received in a one vehicle accident. The accident in question happened while Harlan R. "Randy" Becraft was a passenger in a dune buggy driven by his cousin, Roy Becraft, and owned by a third person, Dennis Maynor. Roy was operating the dune buggy, with the consent of the owner, in a cane field off the public road when the dune buggy rolled over, injuring Randy. The dune buggy was uninsured, but Randy's father had two State Farm policies with uninsured motorist (UM) limits of $25,000/50,000 and coverage for medical payments and personal injury protection (PIP) benefits. Randy was a named insured in said policies. Roy, the driver, also had a State Farm policy on a Chevrolet Corvette with similar limits.

The three State Farm policies provide that liability coverage is afforded for operation of a non-owned vehicle if it is one "designed for use mainly on public roads." Similarly, the policies do not provide UM and medical payments coverage when the vehicle is "designed for use mainly off public roads." Finally, the policies limited PIP coverage to occupancy of a motor vehicle designed for, and required to be licensed for, use on Florida highways.

State Farm filed suit for declaratory judgment seeking to establish that the dune buggy was a vehicle designed for use off the public roads and not a vehicle designed mainly for use on public roads. Both sides moved for summary judgment; State Farm seeking judgment in its favor on all coverages; Randy Becraft and his parents seeking PIP benefits. From a favorable cost judgment and a final summary judgment in favor of State Farm finding no coverage for liability or medical payments, and a summary judgment in favor of the Harlan Becrafts finding entitlement to PIP benefits, both sides have perfected this appeal and cross appeal.

The sole point presented on the main appeal is whether an uninsured motorist carrier can exclude coverage for a motor vehicle designed mainly for use off the public roads when the vehicle is being operated off the public roads at the time of the accident.

The Becrafts contend that, even conceding the trial court's finding that, while the dune buggy was designed for use on the public highways, it was not designed mainly for use on said highways, the buggy remains an uninsured motor vehicle as a matter of law. This is so, the Becrafts argue, because the policy may not be more restrictive in its UM coverage than the statute requires, and there is no provision in the statute restricting the coverage to motor vehicles used mainly on the public roads.

Unquestionably, the dune buggy involved here was primarily designed for use off the public highways, albeit it was usable on such highways, and was licensed therefor, and on occasion used thereon. Therefore, unless the Becrafts are correct in their contention that the policy provision defining "uninsured motor vehicle" is invalid because it contravenes the statutory law of Florida to the extent that it requires the vehicle to be designed for use mainly on the public roads, there simply is no UM coverage for this accident.

We have considered Becraft's contentions regarding the validity of the State Farm exclusion and find that, since the use sought to be avoided by the carrier did not involve the highways, or public roads of the state, the exclusion clause at issue here is not void for public policy reasons. The policy behind section 627.727, Florida Statutes, is to provide the insured motorist with at least the same amount of protection as would have been provided if the tort-feasor had complied with the financial responsibility law. Mullis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 252 So.2d 229, 236 (Fla.1971). Because our motor vehicle financial responsibility law (Chapter 324, Florida Statutes) does not include off-road vehicles in its definition of...