Allstate Insurance Co. v. Pierce

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Allstate Insurance Co. v. Pierce

468 So. 2d 536, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1199, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14181

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 14, 1985

DocketNo. 84-1355

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 468 So. 2d 536 (Allstate Insurance Co. v. Pierce) 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. Pierce, 468 So. 2d 536, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1199, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14181 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The final declaratory judgment under review is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to apply the law of North Carolina, rather than the law of Florida as it did, in determining the amount of uninsured motorist coverage under the insurance policies involved herein and thereafter to enter a new declaratory judgment in this cause. Plainly, the insurance policies in question were issued in North Carolina on automobiles registered and principally garaged in that state, so that the risk of the policies was centered in North Carolina, rather than in Florida where the subject auto accident occurred. Under these circumstances, the law of North Carolina governs in determining the scope of uninsured motorist coverage under these policies as to the subject accident. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Co. v. Woodward, 456 So.2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); see Gillen v. United Services Automobile Association, 300 So.2d 3 (Fla.1974); Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Enright, 258 So.2d 472 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972).

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

The final declaratory judgment under review is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to apply the law of North Carolina, rather than the law of Florida as it did, in determining the amount of uninsured motorist coverage under the insurance policies involved herein and thereafter to enter a new declaratory judgment in this cause. Plainly, the insurance policies in question were issued in North Carolina on automobiles registered and principally garaged in that state, so that the risk of the policies was centered in North Carolina, rather than in Florida where the subject auto accident occurred. Under these circumstances, the law of North Carolina governs in determining the scope of uninsured motorist coverage under these policies as to the subject accident. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Co. v. Woodward, 456 So.2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); see Gillen v. United Services Automobile Association, 300 So.2d 3 (Fla.1974); Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Enright, 258 So.2d 472 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972).

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

468 So. 2d 536, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1199, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allstate-insurance-co-v-pierce-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack