United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Knight

District Court of Appeal of Florida

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Knight

473 So. 2d 287, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1862, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14753

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 2, 1985

DocketNo. 84-1456

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 473 So. 2d 287 (United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Knight) 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

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Knight, 473 So. 2d 287, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1862, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14753 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

OTT, Acting Chief Judge.

Appellant seeks review of the trial court’s order granting final summary judgment in favor of appellee and declaring that appellee was covered under the uninsured motorists coverage provision of an automobile insurance policy issued to her by appellant. We reverse, because we can find no meaningful distinction between the present case and Reid v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 352 So.2d 1172 (Fla.1977); Porr v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 452 So.2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Curtin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 449 So.2d 293 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). We further find that appellee’s reliance on Lee v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 339 So.2d 670 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), is misplaced. While the provision under consideration here is similar to the provision which the Lee court struck as against public policy and void, 339 So.2d at 671, we find that the facts in the Lee case differ significantly from the present case. See also Reid, 352 So.2d at 1174; Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Fonck, 344 So.2d 595, 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) (Lee involved two separate insurance policies and the “uninsured motor vehicle” which caused the injury in Lee was not the same vehicle as the “insured motor vehicle” named in the policy).

Accordingly, the trial court’s order which granted final summary judgment in favor of appellee is REVERSED.

DANAHY and LEHAN, JJ., concur.

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

OTT, Acting Chief Judge.

Appellant seeks review of the trial court’s order granting final summary judgment in favor of appellee and declaring that appellee was covered under the uninsured motorists coverage provision of an automobile insurance policy issued to her by appellant. We reverse, because we can find no meaningful distinction between the present case and Reid v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 352 So.2d 1172 (Fla.1977); Porr v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 452 So.2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Curtin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 449 So.2d 293 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). We further find that appellee’s reliance on Lee v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 339 So.2d 670 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), is misplaced. While the provision under consideration here is similar to the provision which the Lee court struck as against public policy and void, 339 So.2d at 671, we find that the facts in the Lee case differ significantly from the present case. See also Reid, 352 So.2d at 1174; Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Fonck, 344 So.2d 595, 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) (Lee involved two separate insurance policies and the “uninsured motor vehicle” which caused the injury in Lee was not the same vehicle as the “insured motor vehicle” named in the policy).

Accordingly, the trial court’s order which granted final summary judgment in favor of appellee is REVERSED.

DANAHY and LEHAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

473 So. 2d 287, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1862, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14753, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-fidelity-guaranty-co-v-knight-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack