Neduchal v. Allstate Insurance

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Neduchal v. Allstate Insurance

397 So. 2d 925, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17729

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 26, 1980

DocketNo. 79-326

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 397 So. 2d 925 (Neduchal v. Allstate 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

Neduchal v. Allstate Insurance, 397 So. 2d 925, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17729 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The summary final judgment entered herein is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings, on the authority of State Farm Insurance Company v. Bergman, 387 So.2d 494 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).

REVERSED and. REMANDED.

FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., and SHARP, JJ., and JAMIESON, FRANCES ANN, Associate Judge, concur.

ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

In entering a summary final judgment for the appellant, Jerilyn Gallup Ne-duchal, in Neduchal’s action for injuries arising from an automobile accident, the trial judge ruled that section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (1979), prevented Neduchal from stacking uninsured motorist coverage under a policy issued to him upon the uninsured motorist coverage under a policy issued to Stapp, the owner of the car in which Neduchal was a passenger at the time of the accident. The apppellant points out that our prior opinion in this case did not indicate whether this ruling was correct. We hold, consistent with our opinions in Florida Insurance Guaranty Association v. Johnson, 392 So.2d 1348 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), and Day v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Corp., 388 So.2d 351 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), that the statute does not prohibit the stacking of coverages under policies isssued to different named insureds, as in the case here.

Furthermore, as noted in our earlier opinion, the trial judge’s ruling that personal injury protection benefits can be set off against uninsured motorist coverage was incorrect. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Bergman, 387 So.2d 494 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). The motion for clarification is granted, and as clarified herein, we adhere to our original opinion. The final judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

[926]*926FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr. and SHARP, JJ., and JAMIESON, FRANCES ANN, Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The summary final judgment entered herein is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings, on the authority of State Farm Insurance Company v. Bergman, 387 So.2d 494 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).

REVERSED and. REMANDED.

FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., and SHARP, JJ., and JAMIESON, FRANCES ANN, Associate Judge, concur.

ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

In entering a summary final judgment for the appellant, Jerilyn Gallup Ne-duchal, in Neduchal’s action for injuries arising from an automobile accident, the trial judge ruled that section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (1979), prevented Neduchal from stacking uninsured motorist coverage under a policy issued to him upon the uninsured motorist coverage under a policy issued to Stapp, the owner of the car in which Neduchal was a passenger at the time of the accident. The apppellant points out that our prior opinion in this case did not indicate whether this ruling was correct. We hold, consistent with our opinions in Florida Insurance Guaranty Association v. Johnson, 392 So.2d 1348 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), and Day v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Corp., 388 So.2d 351 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), that the statute does not prohibit the stacking of coverages under policies isssued to different named insureds, as in the case here.

Furthermore, as noted in our earlier opinion, the trial judge’s ruling that personal injury protection benefits can be set off against uninsured motorist coverage was incorrect. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Bergman, 387 So.2d 494 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). The motion for clarification is granted, and as clarified herein, we adhere to our original opinion. The final judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

[926]*926FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr. and SHARP, JJ., and JAMIESON, FRANCES ANN, Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

397 So. 2d 925, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17729, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neduchal-v-allstate-insurance-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack