Allstate Insurance Co. v. Dixon ex rel. Dixon

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Allstate Insurance Co. v. Dixon ex rel. Dixon

508 So. 2d 542, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1487, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8853

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 16, 1987

DocketNo. 86-2719

StatusPublished

This text of 508 So. 2d 542 (Allstate Insurance Co. v. Dixon ex rel. Dixon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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).

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

508 So. 2d 542, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1487, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8853, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allstate-insurance-co-v-dixon-ex-rel-dixon-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack