Bethel v. Reliance Insurance Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bethel v. Reliance Insurance Co.

590 So. 2d 1003, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 12807, 1991 WL 259226

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 10, 1991

DocketNo. 90-2862

StatusPublished

This text of 590 So. 2d 1003 (Bethel v. Reliance Insurance Co.) 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

Bethel v. Reliance Insurance Co., 590 So. 2d 1003, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 12807, 1991 WL 259226 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

An employer may show a knowing rejection of uninsured motorist coverage above the statutory minimum through the testimony of its business agent and by the insurance application form. See Muhammed v. Allstate Ins. Co., 582 So.2d 768 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). An injured employee who is a permissive user of the employer’s vehicle for business purposes cannot create a fact issue on the “knowing rejection” question by showing, as countervailing evidence, only that there was no written rejection of uninsured motorist coverage equal to the amount of liability when the policy was renewed. Callard v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 556 So.2d 1141 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). We do not reach the choice of law issue because it is clear that the result would be the same under Ohio law. See Poots v. Motorist Ins. Cos., 38 Ohio App.3d 48, 526 N.E.2d 71 (1986).

The summary judgment entered for the carrier is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

An employer may show a knowing rejection of uninsured motorist coverage above the statutory minimum through the testimony of its business agent and by the insurance application form. See Muhammed v. Allstate Ins. Co., 582 So.2d 768 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). An injured employee who is a permissive user of the employer’s vehicle for business purposes cannot create a fact issue on the “knowing rejection” question by showing, as countervailing evidence, only that there was no written rejection of uninsured motorist coverage equal to the amount of liability when the policy was renewed. Callard v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 556 So.2d 1141 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). We do not reach the choice of law issue because it is clear that the result would be the same under Ohio law. See Poots v. Motorist Ins. Cos., 38 Ohio App.3d 48, 526 N.E.2d 71 (1986).

The summary judgment entered for the carrier is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

590 So. 2d 1003, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 12807, 1991 WL 259226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bethel-v-reliance-insurance-co-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack