State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Polgar
| Decision Date | 27 September 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-0435,88-0435 |
| Citation | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2251,551 So.2d 549 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2251 STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellant, v. Nandor POLGAR and Aranka Polgar, his wife, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard A. Sherman and Rosemary Wilder of Richard A. Sherman, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Joel D. Eaton of Podhurst, Orseck, Parks, Josefsberg, Eaton, Meadow & Olin, P.A., Miami, and Abrams, Anton, Robbins, Resnick & Schneider, P.A., Hollywood, for appellees.
Affirmed. The appellant was required to offer uninsured motorist protection because the "hired automobile liability endorsement" to the business policy in question provided motor vehicle liability protection to the named insureds under the terms of the endorsement. Ellsworth v. Ins. Co. of North America, 508 So.2d 395 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1983). 1 Since appellee was a named insured under the policy, he is a Class I insured pursuant to Mullis v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 252 So.2d 229 (Fla.1971) and is entitled to uninsured motorist protection insurance under the motor vehicle policy whenever and wherever bodily injury is inflicted upon him by a negligent uninsured motorist. This is so even though the automobile appellee occupied at the time of his injuries was not insured under the automobile liability endorsement to this business policy and would have afforded no liability coverage to appellee had he been the negligent party. See Mullis, 252 So.2d at 233-234. Lewis v. Cincinnati Ins. Company, 503 So.2d 908 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Auto Owners Ins. Co. v. Bennett, 466 So.2d 242 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1984). State Farm's contention that Mr. Polgar, although a named insured, is not insured individually because he was a partner and partners are excluded from coverage is unavailing, even if the business is considered a partnership. The policy lists the named insured as "Nandor or Aranka Polgar DBA Inter Beauty Hair Studio." Where a policy lists both the partners and the name of the partnership entity the policy must be read to cover the named partners as individuals as well as the partners as an entity. Ohio Casualty Ins. Co. v. Fike, 304 So.2d 136 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). At most the inclusion of Mr. Polgar as a named insured in one part of the policy and the potential exclusion of him because he may be a "partner" using his own automobile in another section creates an ambiguity...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Deni Associates of Florida, Inc.
...coverage in circumstances where it has heretofore been construed in favor of the insured. See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Polgar, 551 So.2d 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). KLEIN, Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in If the insurers had not, as they refined these exclusions over......
-
Hurtado v. Florida Farm Bureau Cas. Co.
...status as insured by driving his employer's vehicle may not stack employer's insurance coverage); but see, State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Polgar, 551 So.2d 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (where partnership policy lists both partners and the partnership as named insured the partners are class on......
-
Welker v. World Wide Underwriters Ins. Co.
...this court recently has held that named insureds cannot be excluded from uninsured motorist coverage. See State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Polgar, 551 So.2d 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). World Wide's reliance on this court's decision in Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Wright, 543 So.2d 1320 (......
-
Ropar v. Travelers Ins. Co.
...insurance policies" which specifically insure and identify one or more vehicles. Id. at 397; accord State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Polgar, 551 So.2d 549 (Fla.App. 4 Dist.1989). The Travelers policy in this case is just such a "classic automobile insurance policy." It is a vehicle liability i......