Crosby v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Crosby v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co.

622 So. 2d 117, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 7890, 1993 WL 280519

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 28, 1993

DocketNo. 92-3427

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 622 So. 2d 117 (Crosby v. Nationwide Mutual Fire 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

Crosby v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 622 So. 2d 117, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 7890, 1993 WL 280519 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

KLEIN, Judge.

This appeal involves the issue of whether uninsured motorist benefits are available to a resident of the insured’s household, who was struck by an uninsured motorist while operating a motorcycle owned by him but not insured under the policy. We affirm the trial court’s conclusion that there is no coverage and certify conflict.

The policy provisions and facts in the present case are the same as in Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance v. Phillips, 609 So.2d 1385 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992), rev. granted, 620 So.2d 761 (Fla.1993), in which the fifth district concluded there was coverage.

The insurer relies on Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Wright, 543 So.2d 1320 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), in which this court held that where the claimant is not insured under the liability section of the policy, UM coverage is not mandated by Mullis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 252 So.2d 229 (Fla.1971). The insurer also argues that the Florida Supreme Court came to the same conclusion in Valiant Ins. Co. v. Webster, 567 So.2d 408 (Fla.1990). Claimant recognizes that there is language in Valiant which supports the insurer’s argument, but points out the fifth district concluded in Phillips that it was dicta and not controlling.

We affirm because of Wright and certify conflict with Phillips.

Affirmed.

GUNTHER and POLEN, JJ., concur.

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

KLEIN, Judge.

This appeal involves the issue of whether uninsured motorist benefits are available to a resident of the insured’s household, who was struck by an uninsured motorist while operating a motorcycle owned by him but not insured under the policy. We affirm the trial court’s conclusion that there is no coverage and certify conflict.

The policy provisions and facts in the present case are the same as in Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance v. Phillips, 609 So.2d 1385 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992), rev. granted, 620 So.2d 761 (Fla.1993), in which the fifth district concluded there was coverage.

The insurer relies on Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Wright, 543 So.2d 1320 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), in which this court held that where the claimant is not insured under the liability section of the policy, UM coverage is not mandated by Mullis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 252 So.2d 229 (Fla.1971). The insurer also argues that the Florida Supreme Court came to the same conclusion in Valiant Ins. Co. v. Webster, 567 So.2d 408 (Fla.1990). Claimant recognizes that there is language in Valiant which supports the insurer’s argument, but points out the fifth district concluded in Phillips that it was dicta and not controlling.

We affirm because of Wright and certify conflict with Phillips.

Affirmed.

GUNTHER and POLEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

622 So. 2d 117, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 7890, 1993 WL 280519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crosby-v-nationwide-mutual-fire-insurance-co-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack