Taylor v. Safeco Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 23 July 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. V--39,V--39 |
| Citation | 298 So.2d 202 |
| Parties | Jo Anne C. TAYLOR, etc., Appellant, v. SAFECO INSURANCE CO., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
David R. Lewis, Blalock, Holbrook, Lewis, Paul & Isaac, Jacksonville, for appellant.
William M. Howell, Howell, Kirby, Montgomery, D'Aiuto, Dean & Hallowes, Jacksonville, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a final order of the trial court dismissing the amended complaint of appellant. The sole question presented is whether or not the automobile owner's uninsured motor vehicle liability insurance coverage under Section 627.727, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., is available to a bailee passenger in the automobile who is killed in an accident as the result of negligence of the vehicle's driver to whom the bailee has entrusted the car.
Appellant's decedent, William E. Taylor, Jr., was loaned an automobile by his employer, Robert L. Henry, appellee's insured. William, his brother, Earl, and their families went on a fishing trip in the vehicle and William entrusted the driving to Earl. An accident occurred as a result of the alleged negligence of Earl, and William received mortal injuries. Neither Earl nor William had insurance. Appellant, recognizing and accepting the ruling of the trial court that no cause of action exists on behalf of William's estate against the owner, Taylor, (under Raydel, Ltd. v. Medcalfe, Fla., 178 So.2d 569), has brought this action against Taylor's insurer under the uninsured motor vehicle clause of Taylor's insurance policy. Appellant in effect contends that since under Raydel, negligence of a bailee's driver which results in injury to the bailee is not imputed to the ownerbailor, the uninsured motor vehicle coverage of the owner's liability insurance is available to the bailee. She contends here that the decedent was killed as the result of the negligence of Earl, who was uninsured; that although Henry, the owner is not liable to appellant for the negligence of Earl, that Earl (an uninsured motorist) is liable to appellant, and Henry's uninsured motor vehicle coverage on the vehicle inures to appellant's benefit. This contention presents a new and unusual twist to uninsured motor vehicle coverage. We do not agree with appellant's contention.
Section 627.727, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., the uninsured motor vehicle coverage statute, prohibits the issuance of automobile liability insurance coverage '. . . unless coverage is provided therein or supplemental thereto . . . for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles . . .' While it is true that Taylor, the bailee, was occupying Henry's automobile and, thus, would be classed as a person insured under the definition of that term in the uninsured motor vehicle coverage of Henry's policy, Henry's automobile in which Taylor was riding and which was being driven by Earl was not an uninsured vehicle. Henry's policy covering the vehicle included the full insurance coverage required by Florida law. It is under this very policy Which insured the vehicle that appellant claims decedent's estate is entitled to the uninsured motor vehicle coverage contained therein through appellant's theory that it was an uninsured motor vehicle.
For support of her theory, appellant relies upon the following quote of this court from Gordon v. Phoenix Insurance Company, Fla.App., 242...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boynton v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...uninsured vehicle simply because coverage may not be available to the injured party under the circumstances. See Taylor v. Safeco Insurance Co., Fla.App.1974, 298 So.2d 202. 330 So.2d at The majority equates "legally entitled to recover" with the establishment of fault on the part of the un......
-
Hall v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...and it does not become uninsured because liability coverage may not be available to a particular individual. Taylor v. Safeco Insurance Co., 298 So.2d 202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Centennial Insurance Co. v. Wallace, 330 So.2d 815 (Fla. 3d DCA " 'We recognize, as a general rule, that an insurer......
-
Jernigan v. Progressive American Ins. Co., s. 85-1648
...exclusion or other bar to recovery is involved. In support of this rule, the Reid court cited to two cases, Taylor v. Safeco Insurance Company, 298 So.2d 202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974) and Centennial Insurance Company v. Wallace, 330 So.2d 815 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 341 So.2d 1087 (Fla.......
-
Ex parte O'Hare
...does not become uninsured because liability coverage may not be available to a particular individual. Taylor v. Safeco Insurance Co., 298 So.2d 202 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1974); Centennial Insurance Co. v. Wallace, 330 So.2d 815 Next, petitioner argues that restrictive policy provisions in deroga......