U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Van Iderstyne, 76-2672
| Decision Date | 03 June 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-2672,76-2672 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Charles H. VAN IDERSTYNE and Joanne Van Iderstyne, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Roy R. Watson of Adams, Sullivan, Coogler & Watson, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Cone, Owen, Wagner, Nugent, Johnson & McKeown and Larry Klein, West Palm Beach, for appellees.
This appeal involves the uninsured/underinsured motorist statute.
On October 1, 1973 Chapter 73-180 took effect to amend Section 627.727, Florida Statutes by providing that all insurance policies issued after that date must provide uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage in limits not less than the liability coverage limits in the policy.
On October 29, 1973 an insurance policy endorsement was issued by Appellant to Appellee to add an automobile and the premium therefor. The liability limits on the originally issued policy and the endorsement were $50,000/$100,000 and the uninsured motorist coverage limits were $10,000/$20,000.
In January, 1974 Appellees' minor son was struck and killed by an automobile. The coverage on that automobile was $25,000 and the Appellees settled their claim against the owner and operator of the car and their insurance company for $27,000. The Appellees now make claim against their underinsured motorist coverage as they say is provided by the policy and/or the endorsement of October 29, 1973 in compliance with the statute.
For us to decide is the correctness vel non of an Order granting partial Summary Judgment for Appellee and denying Summary Judgment for Appellant. The Order is an interlocutory Order in an equitable action for declaratory relief. We hear this appeal under Fla.App. Rule 4.2. Kingdon v. Walker, 156 So.2d 208 (Fla.2d DCA 1963); Auto Owners Insurance Company v. West 260 So.2d 534 (Fla.3d DCA 1972); Travelers Insurance Company v. Wilson, 261 So.2d 545 (Fla.4th DCA 1972).
The issue as set out by the trial court in its Order is the interpretation of the effect of the endorsement of October 29, 1973. We agree with the trial court which said there are three possible interpretations:
"a. The endorsement relates back to the date of the issuance of the original policy. Under this interpretation, (Appellant) would prevail.
b. Issuance of the endorsement constitutes a reissuance or redelivery of the entire policy. Under this interpretation, (Appellees) would prevail.
c. Issuance of the endorsement constitutes issuance of a severable and independent contract of insurance. Under this interpretation, (Appellees) would prevail."
There is no question that the endorsement and the policy are interrelated and interdependent. If it were not for the endorsement the second automobile would not be covered and if it were not for the policy we wouldn't know most of the terms of the coverage. We must look to three sources for a complete definition of the rights and obligations of the two parties. First to the original policy to find the definition of all the terms of the coverage as contemplated by the parties at the time the contract was entered into, and the identity of the vehicle covered. Second to the endorsement to find the identity of the second vehicle and the amount of coverage applicable to that vehicle. Third to the statutes, regulations and the law governing insurance...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Makela v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...§ 627.727 (1973)) similar in wording to the Illinois statute in this case. A Florida district court, in United States Fire Insurance Co. v. Van Iderstyne (Fla.App.1977), 347 So.2d 672, held that the addition of an endorsement covering a new car to an existent policy, with an additional prem......
-
Florida Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Cox
...engagements with reference to such statute, and the same enters into and becomes a part of the contract"); U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Van Iderstyne, 347 So.2d 672, 673 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) (holding that, where an insurance policy fails to conform to an applicable statute, the court must write a p......
-
Soufi v. Haygood, A06A1153.
...v. State Farm etc., Ins. Co., 147 Ill.App.3d 38, 100 Ill.Dec. 505, 497 N.E.2d 483 (1986). We note that United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Van Iderstyne, 347 So.2d 672 (Fla.Ct.App.1977), the Florida case upon which Soufi relies, was superseded by a later amendment to Florida's Uninsured Motorist......
-
Pierce v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...of interpreting a statute permitting "stacking" of UM coverage, the Supreme Court of Florida stated: "In [United States Fire Insurance Co. v.] Van Iderstyne, [347 So 2d 672 (Fla 1977),] the court determined that the addition of an automobile to an existing policy of insurance along with an ......