Kiertekles v. Manchester Insurance & Indemnity Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kiertekles v. Manchester Insurance & Indemnity Co.

323 So. 2d 317, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 18932

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 9, 1975

DocketNo. 75-275

StatusPublished

This text of 323 So. 2d 317 (Kiertekles v. Manchester Insurance & Indemnity 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

Kiertekles v. Manchester Insurance & Indemnity Co., 323 So. 2d 317, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 18932 (Fla. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, Raymond Kiertekles, appeals the dismissal of his complaint by the trial court upon motion of defendant Manchester Insurance & Indemnity Company. He argues that he was the driver of a rental car in which his co-adventurer was a passenger and that he was entitled to uninsured motorist benefits under a personal policy of insurance owned by the passenger. The trial court held that the contract of insurance of the passenger did not contain uninsured motorist coverage for the benefit of plaintiff. The policy of insurance on which Kiertekles sought recovery was independent and separate from the rental agreement.

We hold that the trial court correctly determined that uninsured motorist coverage was not included for Kiertekles under the terms of the policy or the statute providing for uninsured motorist coverage. See Fla. Stat. § 627.727; Mullis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., Fla.1971, 252 So.2d 229; cf. Cavalier Insurance Corporation v. Bailey, Fla.App.1974, 292 So.2d 67.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, Raymond Kiertekles, appeals the dismissal of his complaint by the trial court upon motion of defendant Manchester Insurance & Indemnity Company. He argues that he was the driver of a rental car in which his co-adventurer was a passenger and that he was entitled to uninsured motorist benefits under a personal policy of insurance owned by the passenger. The trial court held that the contract of insurance of the passenger did not contain uninsured motorist coverage for the benefit of plaintiff. The policy of insurance on which Kiertekles sought recovery was independent and separate from the rental agreement.

We hold that the trial court correctly determined that uninsured motorist coverage was not included for Kiertekles under the terms of the policy or the statute providing for uninsured motorist coverage. See Fla. Stat. § 627.727; Mullis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., Fla.1971, 252 So.2d 229; cf. Cavalier Insurance Corporation v. Bailey, Fla.App.1974, 292 So.2d 67.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

323 So. 2d 317, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 18932, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kiertekles-v-manchester-insurance-indemnity-co-fladistctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack