Allstate Insurance Co. v. Dixon ex rel. Dixon

508 So. 2d 542, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1487, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8853
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 16, 1987·No. No. 86-2719·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

During the course of a personal injury trial involving a minor child, the trial court decided that there was coverage under Personal Injury Protection provisions of an automobile policy because the “motorized bicycle” operated by the child at the time of a collision with an automobile was not an excluded “self-propelled vehicle” under section 627.736(4)(d), Florida Statutes (1985). Based on the competent evidence presented, the court concluded: “The device operated by Dixon, although homemade, most closely approximated a bicycle or moped in its design, appearance, and capacity.” See State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Link, 416 So.2d 875 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). The insurer has not shown that the conclusion is erroneous.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Allstate Insurance Co. v. Dixon ex rel. Dixon, 508 So. 2d 542, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1487, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8853 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

508 So. 2d 542 (Allstate Insurance Co. v. Dixon ex rel. Dixon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Link
416 So. 2d 875 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)