Gelaro v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

502 So. 2d 497, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 493, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6752
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 11, 1987·No. No. BO-48·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, a minor, sought to recover from his mother’s insurer under the uninsured motorist provisions of a policy covering a motor vehicle of the mother other than the one involved in the accident. The policy covering the mother’s vehicle involved in the accident contained an exclusion from coverage for children of the insured. We are without authority to abandon the parental immunity doctrine as an affirmative defense in litigation involving automobile accidents which result in injured children seeking payment from their parents’ automobile insurance policies as requested by appellant. See Ard v. Ard, 414 So.2d 1066 (Fla.1982), Allstate Insurance Co. v. Boynton, 486 So.2d 552 (Fla. 1986) and Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So.2d 431 (Fla.1973).

AFFIRMED.

SMITH, JOANOS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.

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

Gelaro v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 502 So. 2d 497, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 493, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6752 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

502 So. 2d 497 (Gelaro v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jones v. Integral Ins. Co.
631 So. 2d 1132 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Michigan Millers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bourke
581 So. 2d 1365 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)