Travelers Ins. Co. v. Pac, 75--380

• Decision Date: 08 September 1976
• Docket Number: No. 75--380,75--380
• Citation: 337 So.2d 397
• Parties: TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, a Foreign Corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, Appellant, v. Eugene PAC, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 397

337 So.2d 397

TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, a Foreign Corporationauthorized to do business in the State of Florida, Appellant, v.Eugene PAC, Appellee.

No. 75--380.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 8, 1976.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 12, 1976.

Patrick E. Geraghty of Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, Fort Myers, for appellant.

John B. Cechman of Goldberg, Rubinstein & Buckley, Fort Myers, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This case presents the question of whether 'stacking' of uninsured motorist coverage is available to a person who achieves his status as an insured by driving his employer's vehicle.

Appellee Pac, an employee of Frank Carroll Oil Co., was injured by a uninsured motorist while operating his employer's vehicle.At the time of the accident, Frank Carroll Oil Co. was one of the named insureds under a fleet automobile liability insurance policy issued by appellantTravelers Insurance Co.(Travelers) which provided, among other things, uninsured motorist coverage for the motor vehicle involved in the accident in the amount of $10,000 for each person and $20,000 for each accident.The policy also provided the same uninsured motorist coverage for 14 additional vehicles, all of which were specifically identified in the policy and for which a separate premium was paid.

Travelers filed a declaratory judgment action to determine whether or not the appellee could aggregate or 'stack' the uninsured motorist coverage provided under the police on all 15 individual vehicles.The trial court ruled that appellee was entitled to stack the uninsured motorist coverage under the Travelers policy which, in effect, made the total coverage $150,000.Travelers appeals this declaratory judgment.We reverse.

The parties have not cited, and we have not found, a Florida case dealing with 'stacking' uninsured motorist coverages where the injured party was an insured only by virtue of occupying an insured vehicle.No contention is made that there is any policy provision authorizing an insured to aggregate or 'stack' coverage; therefore, we must determine whether statutory or case law requires the result reached by the trial court.

The insurance policy at issue defines 'insured' as:

(1) the named insured as stated in the policy (herein also referred to as the 'principal named insured') and any person designated as named insured in the schedule and, while residents of the same household, the spouse of any such named insured and relatives of either;

(2) any other person while occupying an insured automobile;

The entitlement of each of these two classes of insureds to uninsured motorist protection was distinguished in Mullis v. State Farm Mutual, Fla.1971, 252 So.2d 229.There, the court held that the named insured, his spouse, and their relatives must be afforded uninsured motorist protection regardless of whether they are in an insured vehicle at the time of the accident.This is to be contrasted to persons who become an insured solely by riding in an insured vehicle.As the court pointed out, this second group is necessarily restricted to occupants of the insured vehicle for the purpose of coverage identification.

The case which gave rise to the concept of stacking is Tucker v. Government Employees Insurance Co., Fla.1973, 288 So.2d 238.There, the court wrote:

The total uninsured motorist coverage which the insured has purchased for himself and his family regardless of the number of vehicles covered by his auto liability policy inures to him or any member of his family when injured by an uninsured motorist.

The Tucker opinion cites Mullis and we think the net effect of the language quoted above is that stacking is mandated only for those insureds in the first category outlined in Mullis.Stacking is derived from the presumption that when the named insured purchases uninsured motorist coverage on more than one automobile, he intends to buy extra...