Quinn v. Gorman

354 So. 2d 429
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJanuary 24, 1978
Docket76-2634
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 354 So. 2d 429 (Quinn v. Gorman) 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
Quinn v. Gorman, 354 So. 2d 429 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

Opinion

354 So.2d 429 (1978)

Margaret QUINN, Appellant,
v.
Kimberly Ann GORMAN, A. Morey, Ann Morey, and Travelers Indemnity Company, a Foreign Corporation Doing Business in Florida, Appellees.

No. 76-2634.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

January 24, 1978.

Robert J. McFann and Dale R. Sanders of Di Giulian, Spellacy, Bernstein, Lyons & Sanders, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

George E. Bunnell and Thomas E. Scott, Jr. of Huebner, Shaw & Bunnell, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee Travelers.

ANSTEAD, Judge.

This is an appeal from a final summary judgment holding that a policy of insurance provided by the appellee, Travelers Indemnity Company, to its insured, Ann Morey, did not provide coverage for the insured's liability under Section 322.09, Florida Statutes (1975), whereby the insured may be liable for her daughter's negligence because of co-signing the minor daughter's application for a driver's license. We affirm.

The appellant, Margaret Quinn, was injured in an accident involving an automobile owned and operated by the appellee, *430 Kimberly Ann Gorman. At the time of the accident Kimberly was not a resident of the household of her mother, Ann Morey. Travelers insured Mrs. Morey under a liability policy which by its terms covered Mrs. Morey and residents of her household for accidents involving anyone's authorized use of Mrs. Morey's automobile and Mrs. Morey's use of any automobile. There was no coverage provided in the policy for Mrs. Morey's liability under Florida Statute 322.09.

The appellant contends that public policy mandates that Section 322.09 be made a part of Travelers' policy as a matter of law for otherwise there will be no insurance coverage in this case. The chief source for the expression of public policy is the legislature. However, we can find no legislative enactments which require that the insurance contract include this coverage. Absent such a legislative requirement the parties are free to contract as they please. The final summary judgment is hereby affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

DOWNEY and LETTS, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Crawley v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
979 P.2d 74 (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, 1999)
Tomlinson v. State Farm
579 So. 2d 211 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Novak
807 P.2d 531 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1990)
Boudreau v. GEN. ACC. FIRE & LIFE INS.
466 So. 2d 338 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
354 So. 2d 429, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quinn-v-gorman-fladistctapp-1978.