STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. INS. v. Kuhn

374 So. 2d 1079
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedAugust 21, 1979
Docket79-279
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 374 So. 2d 1079 (STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. INS. v. Kuhn) 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
STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. INS. v. Kuhn, 374 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. Ct. App. 1979).

Opinion

374 So.2d 1079 (1979)

STATE FARM Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Appellant,
v.
Robert H. Kuhn and Rebecca W. Kuhn, His Wife, Appellees.

No. 79-279.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

August 21, 1979.
Rehearing Denied September 19, 1979.

*1080 Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder & Carson and George W. Chesrow, Miami, for appellant.

Post & Gordon, Greene & Cooper and Marc Cooper, Miami, for appellees.

Before HAVERFIELD, C.J., and KEHOE and SCHWARTZ, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In this declaratory judgment action defendant insurer appeals a partial summary judgment determining that plaintiff insured is entitled to uninsured motorist benefits.

Appellant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, had issued to the appellee, Robert H. Kuhn, two separate liability insurance policies, one for his motorcycle and the other for his pickup truck. The truck policy provided uninsured motorist coverage. Kuhn had rejected in writing such coverage for his motorcycle. While riding his motorcycle, Kuhn sustained injuries when an automobile owned and operated by Dana Tucker struck the motorcycle. Tucker had no liability insurance and Kuhn made demand upon State Farm for the uninsured motorist benefits under the truck policy. State Farm denied coverage and Kuhn filed the instant suit for declaratory relief. Subsequently both parties moved for summary judgment, which after hearing was entered in favor of Kuhn. From the judgment finding that Kuhn is entitled to uninsured motorist benefits, State Farm perfected this appeal.

The dispositive question presented for our determination is whether Kuhn is precluded by Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (1977), below, from recovery of the uninsured motorist benefits provided in the truck policy.

"627.4132 Stacking of coverages prohibited. — If an insured or named insured is protected by any type of motor vehicle insurance policy for liability, uninsured motorist, personal injury protection, or any other coverage, the policy shall provide that the insured or named insured is protected only to the extent of the coverage he has on the vehicle involved in the accident. However, if none of the insured's or named insured's vehicles is involved in the accident, coverage is available only to the extent of coverage on any one of the vehicles with applicable coverage. Coverage on any other vehicles shall not be added to or stacked upon that coverage. This section shall not apply to reduce the coverage available by reason of insurance policies insuring different named insureds." [Emphasis Supplied]

The well established principle of law is that where the words used and the grammatical construction employed in a statute are clear and they convey a definite meaning, *1081 the legislature is presumed to have meant what it said and, therefore, it is unnecessary to resort to the rules of statutory construction. Hialeah, Inc. v. B & G Horse Transp., Inc., 368 So.2d 930 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).

A reading of Section 627.4132 clearly evidences a two fold purpose: (1) to prohibit the stacking of coverages, and (2) to restrict an insured to the coverage contained in the policy covering the vehicle which he was operating at the time of the accident. McLellan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 366 So.2d 811, 812 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). Kuhn's motorcycle being the vehicle involved in accident, Kuhn is restricted to the coverage in the policy issued on the motorcycle. Having rejected uninsured motorist coverage thereon, he is not entitled to the uninsured motorist benefits provided for in his truck policy under the plain terms of the statute.

In an attempt to circumvent Section 627.4132, Kuhn argues that his motorcycle is not a "vehicle." However, we must reject this argument for the reasons cited in Standard Marine Insurance Company v. Allyn, 333 So.2d 497 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).

Accordingly, the judgment for Kuhn is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court to enter judgment for State Farm.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

Grant v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co.
620 So. 2d 778 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
Henhill Corp. v. State, Department of Legal Affairs
578 So. 2d 335 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
State v. Howard
510 So. 2d 612 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
AUTO. INS. CO. OF HARTFORD v. Beem
469 So. 2d 138 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Kobert
453 So. 2d 779 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1984)
Ellis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
441 So. 2d 1181 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Lewis
442 So. 2d 216 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1983)
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Rauenzahn
442 So. 2d 217 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1983)
Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Lambert
444 So. 2d 8 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1983)
New Hampshire Ins. Group v. Harbach
439 So. 2d 1383 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1983)
Reynolds v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
437 So. 2d 195 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Stern
433 So. 2d 48 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
Progressive American Ins. Co. v. Glenn
428 So. 2d 367 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Lewis
425 So. 2d 603 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
Vetter v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
423 So. 2d 991 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
Luis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
419 So. 2d 423 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
Allstate Insurance Co. v. Alvarez
414 So. 2d 224 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
Hines v. Wausau Underwriters Ins. Co.
408 So. 2d 772 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
Florida Ins. Guaranty Ass'n v. Johnson
392 So. 2d 1348 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)
Lauredo v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York
388 So. 2d 1073 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
374 So. 2d 1079, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-farm-mut-auto-ins-v-kuhn-fladistctapp-1979.