Rando v. Government Employees Ins. Co.

556 F.3d 1173, 2009 WL 225251
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
DecidedJuly 15, 2010
Docket08-13247
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 556 F.3d 1173 (Rando v. Government Employees Ins. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rando v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 556 F.3d 1173, 2009 WL 225251 (11th Cir. 2010).

Opinion

611 F.3d 765 (2010)

John RANDO, Gail Rando, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 08-13247.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

July 15, 2010.

*766 Bryan Scott Gowdy, Mills, Creed & Gowdy, P.A., Jacksonville, FL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Angels C. Flowers, Kubicki Draper, Ocala, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before HULL, WILSON and HILL, Circuit Judges.

HULL, Circuit Judge:

The facts of this case are set forth in our prior opinion, in which we certified to the Supreme Court of Florida the following question on a controlling issue of law:

WHETHER, UNDER FLORIDA LAW, AN AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE POLICY—WHICH WAS EXECUTED, ISSUED AND DELIVERED IN FLORIDA TO THE NAMED INSUREDS RESIDING IN FLORIDA FOR A CAR THAT IS REGISTERED AND GARAGED IN DELAWARE—MAY VALIDLY PROVIDE THAT UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE UNDER THAT POLICY MAY NOT BE COMBINED WITH UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE PROVIDED BY A SEPARATE AUTOMOBILE POLICY ALSO ISSUED BY THE INSURER TO THE NAMED INSUREDS IN FLORIDA.

Rando v. Gov't Employees Ins. Co., 556 F.3d 1173, 1181 (11th Cir.2009). The Supreme Court of Florida responded in the negative, concluding "that under Florida law, the uninsured motorist anti-stacking provision contained in the Randos' motor vehicle insurance policy ... is unenforceable [because] the insurer, the Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO), failed to satisfy the informed consent requirement of section 627.727(9), Florida Statutes (2005)." Rando v. Gov't Employees Ins. Co., No. SC09-240, ___ So.3d ___, ___, 2010 WL 1372697, at *1 (Apr. 8, 2010).

In light of the Supreme Court of Florida's response, we find the district court erred when it concluded that the anti-stacking provision at issue in this case was enforceable under Florida law. Thus, we reverse the district court's grant of summary *767 judgment to GEICO and remand for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

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

Related

National Trust Insurance v. Graham Bros. Construction Co.
916 F. Supp. 2d 1244 (M.D. Florida, 2013)
AIG Premier Insurance v. RLI Insurance
812 F. Supp. 2d 1315 (M.D. Florida, 2011)
Rando v. Government Employees Insurance
611 F.3d 765 (Eleventh Circuit, 2010)
Rando v. Government Employees Insurance Co.
39 So. 3d 244 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2010)
Pendergast v. Sprint Nextel Corp.
592 F.3d 1119 (Eleventh Circuit, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
556 F.3d 1173, 2009 WL 225251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rando-v-government-employees-ins-co-ca11-2010.