Battle v. Coleman

336 So. 2d 140, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15205
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedAugust 11, 1976
DocketNo. AA-143
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 336 So. 2d 140 (Battle v. Coleman) 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
Battle v. Coleman, 336 So. 2d 140, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15205 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

Opinion

RAWLS, Acting Chief Judge.

Appellant-plaintiff Battle filed his complaint against appellee Coleman and appel-lee State Farm Mutual Insurance Company alleging that Coleman negligently injured plaintiff and that Coleman was insured by a State Farm liability insurance policy. State Farm sought declaratory relief on the issue of insurance coverage. The trial judge granted State Farm’s motion for summary judgment holding that State Farm was not liable; hence this appeal.

The sole issue is whether State Farm’s liability insurance policy issued to Coleman on a 1965 Chevrolet also insured Coleman while he was driving a 1964 Ford van which was involved in the instant accident.

Although State Farm relies upon two exclusionary provisions of its policy in sustaining the summary judgment in its favor, we hold that determinative of this appeal is the “used in a business or occupation of the insured” exclusionary provision of the policy,1 and thus pretermit any discussion as to the other exclusionary provision.2 The following facts were not contradicted: Coleman was a member of a band known as the “Generation Gap” and had been playing with this band since its organization some seven years ago. The members of the band were equal owners of the van involved in the accident; it having been paid for out of band earnings as was gas and maintenance. Application for title to the van was submitted in the name of a friend of the band leader, because he was twenty-one years old and none of the members were twenty-one years of age when the van was purchased. The van was painted with the band slogan and was used in connection with the band business to carry instruments, sound equipment, and some of the band members to various business engagements. Coleman and other members of the band regularly took turns driving the van. At the time of the accident, the van was occupied by three band members (including Coleman, the alleged driver), their musical instruments and sound equipment, and was being driven to Lake City where the band had an engagement to play that evening. The business or occupation of Coleman was that of playing as a member of the “Generation Gap” band. He was engaged in that business or occupation when the accident occurred. It would be grossly unreasonable to think that either the insured or the insurer, upon the issuance of the liability insurance policy covering Coleman’s private automobile, contemplated that such coverage extended to the vehicle equitably owned and operated by Coleman and his fellow band members in pursuit of their business. Voelker v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 260 F.2d 275 (7th Cir. 1958); Annot., 85 A.L.R.2d 502 (1962).

AFFIRMED.

SMITH, J., and RUDD, JOHN A., Associate Judge, concur.

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

Related

Insurance Co. of North America v. Coffman
451 A.2d 952 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1982)
Volkswagen Ins. Co. v. Dung Ba Nguyen
405 So. 2d 190 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
336 So. 2d 140, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/battle-v-coleman-fladistctapp-1976.