U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Webb
| Decision Date | 15 November 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. H--208,H--208 |
| Citation | 191 So.2d 869 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant, v. Frank Alee WEBB, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Charles Cook Howell, Jr., Jacksonville, for appellant.
Robert C. Gobelman, of Mathews, Osborne & Ehrlich, Jacksonville, for appellee.
The sole question on this appeal is whether under the facts detailed below the insurer is liable to the insured Webb for injuries he sustained in an automobile accident caused by the negligence of the driver of an uninsured vehicle. We are concerned with the interpretation of a policy of insurance containing an endorsement for uninsured automobile coverage.
Frank Alee Webb owned two white 1951 Chevrolet automobiles. On one he carried liability insurance with United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company. The other was uninsured. On December 12, 1964, while Webb was driving the uninsured vehicle, he was involved in an accident caused by the negligence of the driver of an uninsured Ford. Webb sustained bodily injury and sought arbitration in accordance with the provision for same in the section of his policy governing uninsured motor vehicle coverage.
The insurer filed this action for a declaratory judgment to determine Webb's right to arbitration. Following certain discovery proceedings the trial judge granted defendant Webb's motion for summary judgment. The cause then proceeded to trial on defendant's counterclaim for damages. From the ensuing jury verdict and final judgment in favor of Webb, United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company appealed.
Appellant's sole contention on appeal is that the facts of this case brought Webb within the exclusion provision of the policy endorsement containing the uninsured motorist coverage. This endorsement is entitled Family Protection Coverage. In general it provides uninsured motor vehicle coverage to the principal named insured and his relatives while residents of the same household. By the terms of the endorsement such relatives are insureds. The pertinent portion of the exclusion clause reads:
'This endorsement does not apply:
'(b) to bodily injury to an insured while occupying an automobile (other than an insured automobile) owned by a Named Insured or any relative resident in the same household, or through being struck by such an automobile, but this exclusion does not apply to the Principal Named Insured or his relatives while occupying or if struck by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holcomb v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 73--20
...to the case at bar, contains no such provision. The appellants correctly argue that the Florida case of United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Webb, Fla.App., 191 So.2d 869, relied on by the appellee at the trial, was overturned by the Florida Supreme Court in the case of Mullis v. State ......
-
Hodges v. National Union Indem. Co.
...is not justified. Powell (at page 247) points out that its language is not so meant when it adheres to United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Webb, 191 So.2d 869 (1st DCA Fla.1966) as 'However, we adhere to the Webb decision, it being our view, at that time and today, that it was not the ......
-
Morrison Assur. Co. v. Polak
...supra, 214 So.2d at page 879, under the authority of which the decision here reviewed was entered. And in United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Webb, Fla.App.1966, 191 So.2d 869, the First District Court of Appeal upheld a clause in an uninsured motorist endorsement excluding from such c......
-
Mullis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...cause of action and the First District Court affirmed, on appeal, citing in support its decision in United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Webb, Fla.App.1966, 191 So.2d 869. The question to be decided is whether the described exclusion of Richard Lamar Mullis from uninsured motorist cover......