Johnson v. Sentry Insurance

510 So. 2d 1219, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1990, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9901
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedAugust 13, 1987
DocketNo. 86-1507
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 510 So. 2d 1219 (Johnson v. Sentry Insurance) 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
Johnson v. Sentry Insurance, 510 So. 2d 1219, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1990, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9901 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

COWART, Judge.

A mother, appellant, was the insured in an insurance policy, issued by appellee insurance company, which excluded her from recovering uninsured motorist benefits for the death of her son (caused by an uninsured motorist) if the son were the owner of a car at the time of his death. The certificate of title to another certain motor vehicle listed the mother and her son as owner, thereby creating a presumption that the son was an owner of that car.

To avoid summary judgment on these facts the mother, by affidavit and deposition, stated, in effect, that she caused the son's name to be placed on the title certificate of the second vehicle, not to cause him to be an owner of the car, but to cause title to pass to him without probate in the event of her death.1 This is the exact converse of the situation in Johnson v. DeAngelo, 448 So.2d 581 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) where the mother, in order to avoid vicarious liability for damages caused by her son’s operation of a jointly titled vehicle, presented evidence of her subjective intent, reason, and motive for her name being on a title certificate. The purely subjective intent of the mother in Johnson, that she not be the owner for the purposes of being held legally responsible, was held insufficient to overcome the objective legal presumption there, and the mother’s intent here, that the deceased son not be the owner in so far as that adversely affected her uninsured motorist coverage, is likewise insufficient. The summary judgment in favor of the insurer and against the insured is

AFFIRMED.

UPCHURCH, C.J., and SHARP, J., concur.

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

Related

Bowen v. Taylor-Christensen
98 So. 3d 136 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)
Geico Indemnity Insurance v. Reed
13 So. 3d 99 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
510 So. 2d 1219, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1990, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-sentry-insurance-fladistctapp-1987.