Marchese v. Lititz Mutual Insurance Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Marchese v. Lititz Mutual Insurance Co.

524 So. 2d 1155, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1192, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2040, 1988 WL 47486

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 17, 1988

DocketNo. 87-1871

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 524 So. 2d 1155 (Marchese v. Lititz Mutual 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

Marchese v. Lititz Mutual Insurance Co., 524 So. 2d 1155, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1192, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2040, 1988 WL 47486 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The final declaratory decree under review is affirmed upon a holding that the accident sued upon is not covered by the subject homeowner’s insurance policy which, without dispute, does not cover accidents involving motor vehicles owned by the insured when the accident occurs off the insured’s “resident premises.” We reach this result because (a) it was conceded below that the Honda ATC involved in the subject accident was owned by the insured Brandi Richardson, there being no dispute that it was a gift from her nonin-sured, nonresident father; (b) the accident sued upon in the instant case occurred on an empty lot, not owned by the insured, across the street from the insured’s home, and, therefore, did not occur on the insured’s “resident premises” as defined by the policy inter alia: “any premises used by you in connection with [insured’s home]”; and (c) a contrary result would mean, as noted by the trial court, that any non-owned empty lot regularly used by an insured to ride her motor vehicle, including lots located many blocks from the insured’s home, would be considered “resident premises” under the policy — clearly an absurd interpretation. See, e.g., James v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., 66 So.2d 62 (Fla.1953); Fernandez v. United States Fidelity & Guarantee Co., 308 So.2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The final declaratory decree under review is affirmed upon a holding that the accident sued upon is not covered by the subject homeowner’s insurance policy which, without dispute, does not cover accidents involving motor vehicles owned by the insured when the accident occurs off the insured’s “resident premises.” We reach this result because (a) it was conceded below that the Honda ATC involved in the subject accident was owned by the insured Brandi Richardson, there being no dispute that it was a gift from her nonin-sured, nonresident father; (b) the accident sued upon in the instant case occurred on an empty lot, not owned by the insured, across the street from the insured’s home, and, therefore, did not occur on the insured’s “resident premises” as defined by the policy inter alia: “any premises used by you in connection with [insured’s home]”; and (c) a contrary result would mean, as noted by the trial court, that any non-owned empty lot regularly used by an insured to ride her motor vehicle, including lots located many blocks from the insured’s home, would be considered “resident premises” under the policy — clearly an absurd interpretation. See, e.g., James v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., 66 So.2d 62 (Fla.1953); Fernandez v. United States Fidelity & Guarantee Co., 308 So.2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

524 So. 2d 1155, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1192, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2040, 1988 WL 47486, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marchese-v-lititz-mutual-insurance-co-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack