State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Spinola, 23991.
| Decision Date | 23 March 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 23991.,23991. |
| Citation | 374 F.2d 873 |
| Parties | STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Joseph SPINOLA, Margaret R. Caruso and Fay Rossi, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
John H. Wahl, Jr., Richard J. Thornton, Laurence A. Schroeder, Miami, Fla., Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder, Carson & Wahl, Miami, Fla., of counsel, for appellant.
Norman S. Klein, North Miami Beach, Fla., Linet, Schwartz & Klein, North Miami Beach, Fla., of counsel, for appellees.
Before BROWN, MOORE,* and BELL, Circuit Judges.
This appeal from a final declaratory decree in favor of the appellees involves the construction of a provision in an automobile insurance contract relating to hit-and-run vehicles.
On December 21, 1963, in Dade County, Florida, appellee Spinola was the driver of a vehicle in which appellees Caruso and Rossi were passengers. Spinola was insured under a contract issued by appellant State Farm. The vehicle was stopped in a line of traffic. Immediately behind him and also stopped was an automobile driven by Mr. Cortez. A third vehicle struck the Cortez automobile which, in turn, rammed the Spinola vehicle causing injury to its occupants. The driver of the third vehicle fled the scene of the accident. Neither his identity nor the ownership of the automobile could be ascertained.
Spinola's contract with appellant contained a provision imposing liability upon appellant for all sums which Spinola would be legally entitled to recover from the hit-and-run vehicle, provided the injury arose out of the "* * * physical contact of such vehicle the hit-and-run vehicle with the insured or with the automobile which the insured is occupying at the time of the accident * *".
The sole issue before us is whether there was physical contact between the hit-and-run vehicle and the Spinola vehicle so as to bring the accident within the coverage of the insurance contract. The District Court answered this question in the affirmative. We agree. There is no Florida decision in point. The cases of Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp. v. Eisenberg, N.Y. Ct. of App., 1966, 18 N.Y.2d 1, 271 N.Y.S. 2d 641; Inter-Insurance Exchange of Auto. Club of So. Cal. v. Lopez, Dist.Ct. of App., Cal., 1965, 238 ACA 516, 47 Cal.Rptr. 834 are analogous and persuasive. The holding in each is consistent with that of the District Court here.
The only Florida decision dealing with the meaning of "physical contact" under such a provision is, w...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Sdi Future Health, Inc.
... ... learned at oral argument that in Washington State, contrary to the practice we usually see in ... Benefit Program, and private healthcare insurance carriers by seeking payment for services that SDI ... ...
-
Clark v. Regent Ins. Co.
...313 So.2d 251; Latham v. Mountain States Mutual Casualty (Tex.Civ.App.1972) 482 S.W.2d 655; State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Spinola (1967) 5th Cir., 374 F.2d 873; Lord v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company (1970) 22 Mich.App. 669, 177 N.W.2d 653.9 Although subsequently reversed, ic......
-
DeMello v. First Ins. Co. of Hawaii, Ltd., 5437
...and then seeks recovery on the ground that it was due to a fictitious hit-and-run driver.' State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Spinola, 374 F.2d 873, 875 (5th Cir. 1967). The elimination of fraudulent claims is obviously not repugnant to the statutory terms of HRS § 431-448 or......
-
Blankenbaker v. Great Central Ins. Co.
...out of hit-and-run accidents. Amidzich v. Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co., (1969) 44 Wis.2d 45, 170 N.W.2d 813; State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., v. Spinola, (5th Cir. 1967) 374 F.2d 873; Johnson v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., (1967) 70 Wash.2d 587, 424 P.2d 648; Barfield v. Insurance Co. of ......