Williams v. General Ins. Co.
| Citation | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1088,468 So.2d 1033 |
| Decision Date | 30 April 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-1915,84-1915 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1088 Thelma H. WILLIAMS and Bobbie Lee Williams, Appellants, v. GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Steven R. Berger and Amy N. Dean and Diane Kuker, Wolpe & Leibowitz, Miami, for appellants.
Joe N. Unger, Kopplow & Flynn, Miami, for appellee.
Before HENDRY, BASKIN and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.
This is an appeal from a final judgment in favor of the plaintiff, General Insurance Company, in a declaratory judgment action. The trial court determined that General Insurance Company had no duty to defend or indemnify the defendants, Thelma Williams and her son, Bobbie Williams, for any loss or claims resulting from an automobile accident. We conclude otherwise, and reverse.
The relevant record facts are as follows. Thelma Williams, the appellant, renewed her automobile insurance with General Insurance Company on December 9, 1982. The renewal forms were filled out with the assistance of an insurance agent who explained the questions and wrote down Mrs. Williams' answers. Mrs. Williams was asked to provide the names of drivers in the household and other drivers of the insured vehicle. 1 She named no one but herself.
On June 5, 1983 Bobbie Williams was driving the insured vehicle with Mrs. Williams' permission and became involved in an accident. Bobbie Williams had driven the insured auto only two times prior to Mrs. Williams' application for renewal and a total of only two times prior to the date of the accident. Although Bobbie spent an occasional night at his mother's home and once stayed an entire week, neither on the date of Mrs. Williams' renewal, nor on the date of the accident, nor between such dates did Bobbie Williams live with his mother. He did use her address as a mailing address, for all legal forms and for driver's license purposes. All of Mrs. Williams' adult children used her house as their mailing address, including one child in the army and another child who owned a house in Dade County. Bobbie Williams did not consider his mother's house his primary residence.
General Insurance Company argues on appeal that section 627.409, Florida Statutes (1983) provides for the denial of automobile insurance coverage for Mrs. Williams because of her failure to include in the application the name of her son as a driver in the applicant's household or as a driver of the insured vehicle. It contends that section 627.409 precludes coverage where the insured has made a material misrepresentation.
Mrs. Williams and her son contend that Bobbie Williams was not a member of Mrs. Williams' household or a driver of the insured vehicle. Further, they argue that even if Mrs. Williams did make a misrepresentation, it was made in good faith. Such good faith, appellants assert, prevents application of the statute to bar coverage as the statute requires the insurer to show that Mrs. Williams' statement was both a fraudulent and material misrepresentation.
Our review is guided by the well-established rule that the trial court's decision in a declaratory judgment action is accorded a presumption of correctness and will not be rejected on appeal unless based on a misapplication of law or shown by the record to be clearly wrong, or against the manifest weight of the evidence, or not supported by competent substantial evidence. General Insurance Co. v. Ramanovski, 443 So.2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Groover v. Adiv Holding Co., 202 So.2d 103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967).
Initially, we conclude that there was no misrepresentation by Mrs. Williams in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reform Party of Florida v. Black, No. SC04-1755
...declaratory judgment action is generally accorded a presumption of correctness on appellate review. See, e.g., Williams v. Gen. Ins. Co., 468 So.2d 1033, 1034 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). However, to the extent that the decision rests on a question of law, the order is subject to full, or de novo, r......
-
Ranger Ins. Co. v. Bal Harbour Club, Inc.
...must be resolved in favor of the insured. Harris v. Carolina Life Insurance Co., 233 So.2d 833 (Fla.1970); Williams v. General Insurance Co., 468 So.2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). I disagree with the majority's disposition on the second point--whether the insured's longstanding policy of invid......
-
Harkless v. Laubhan
...decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence or not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Williams v. Gen. Ins. Co., 468 So. 2d 1033, 1034 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). A party is a bona fide purchaser only when three conditions are met: (1) the purchaser obtained legal title to th......
-
Keene v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, etc., Case No. 5D07-3058 (Fla. App. 12/19/2008)
...review denied, 952 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 2007); see also Collier v. Parker, 794 So. 2d 616, 618 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Williams v. Gen. Ins. Co., 468 So. 2d 1033, 1034 (Fla. 3d DCA), pet. for review denied, 476 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 1985); Gen. Ins. Co. v. Ramanovski, 443 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)......