State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Menendez

• Citation: 24 So.3d 809
• Decision Date: 06 January 2010
• Docket Number: No. 3D08-2969.,3D08-2969.
• Parties: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Gilda MENENDEZ, Fabiola G. Llanes, Fabiola P. Llanes and Roger Llanes, Appellees.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Florida (US)

24 So.3d 809 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant,
v.
Gilda MENENDEZ, Fabiola G. Llanes, Fabiola P. Llanes and Roger Llanes, Appellees. No. 3D08-2969. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. January 6, 2010.

Russo Appellate Firm and Elizabeth K. Russo, Miami; Bernstein, Chackman, Liss & Rose, Hollywood, for appellant.

[24 So.3d 810]

Gonzalo R. Dorta, Miami, for appellee Gilda Menendez.

Ross & Girten and Lauri Waldman Ross and Theresa L. Girten, Miami; Karel Remudo, Miami, for appellees Fabiola G. Llanes, Fabiola P. Llanes, and Roger Llanes.

Before COPE, CORTIÑAS, and ROTHENBERG, JJ.

ROTHENBERG, J.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm") appeals from a final summary judgment entered in a declaratory relief action wherein the trial court found that the household exclusion in the automobile insurance policy issued by State Farm to Gilda Menendez ("named insured") was ambiguous as applied to Fabiola P. Llanes and Roger Llanes (collectively, "parents"), and therefore, unenforceable. We affirm.

The named insured permitted her granddaughter, Fabiola G. Llanes ("the named insured's granddaughter"), to use her vehicle. While operating the vehicle, the named insured's granddaughter negligently collided with another vehicle, resulting in injuries to herself, her parents, and the named insured. When the accident occurred, the named insured's granddaughter was living with her parents, and the named insured was living at a separate address.

Following the accident, the parents filed suit against the named insured seeking to recover damages for their bodily injuries, and the named insured sought coverage from State Farm. State Farm denied coverage for the parents' injuries based on the policy's household exclusion, which provides as follows:

When [Liability] Coverage A Does Not Apply

. . . .

THERE IS NO COVERAGE:

. . . .

2. FOR ANY BODILY INJURY TO:

. . . .

c. ANY INSURED OR ANY MEMBER OF AN INSURED'S FAMILY RESIDING IN THE INSURED'S HOUSEHOLD.

State Farm asserted that the named insured's granddaughter, as a permissive user of the insured vehicle, was an insured under the policy. Because the named insured's granddaughter and her parents resided in the same household, State Farm argued that there was no coverage under the policy for the parents' bodily injuries based on the above household exclusion.

The parents, however, claimed that the phrase "the insured" refers to the named insured, Gilda Menendez, and that the definition of "the insured" does not include permissive users of the insured. The parents therefore argued that because they were not residing in "the insured's" household at the time of the accident, the household exclusion was inapplicable to them. Following the hearing, the trial court concluded that the household exclusion was ambiguous and entered final summary judgment against State Farm and in favor of the named insured, the named insured's granddaughter, and the parents. State Farm's appeal followed.

The issue before this Court is whether the household exclusion bars the bodily injury claims of the parents, who were not residing with the named insured on the date of the accident. Because the interpretation of an insurance contract presents a question of law, this Court's standard of review is de novo. See Martinez v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 982 So.2d 57 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Auto-Owners

24 So.3d 811

Ins. Co. v. Marvin Dev. Corp....