www.rissman.com
TAMPA COMMONS
ONE NORTH DALE MABRY HIGHWAY
11TH FLOOR
TAMPA, FLORIDA 33609
TELEPHONE (813) 221-3114
TELECOPIER (813) 221-3033
TAMPA@RISSMAN.COM
201 EAST PINE STREET
15TH FLOOR
P.O. BOX 4940
ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32802-4940
TELEPHONE (407) 839-0120
TELECOPIER (407) 841-9726
ORLANDO@RISSMAN.COM
709 SEBASTIAN BOULEVARD
SUITE B
SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958
TELEPHONE (772) 228-3228
TELECOPIER (772) 228-3229
SEBASTIAN@RISSMAN.COM

 

 

The 3d DCA in Antonelli v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 39 Fla. L. Weekly D61b (Fla. 3d DCA January 2, 2014) reversed in part and affirmed in part a summary judgment in favor of United Auto Insurance Company.

The case involved a coverage dispute over a bodily injury claim filed by Osvaldo De Domingo after Mr. De Domingo was involved in an auto accident while driving a vehicle insured by United. The insurance policy issued by United was a commercial policy with a "named driver exclusion" provision that limited the definition of "covered drivers" to the insureds specifically named in the policy.

Once suit was filed, United filed a motion for summary judgment because Mr. De Domingo was not a named insured under the policy. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding that the exclusion precluded Mr. De Domingo from being able to recover bodily injury damages, PIP benefits or property damage.

The 3d DCA affirmed the trial court's summary judgment as to the bodily injury claim. In doing so, the 3d DCA held that the "named driver exclusion" was unambiguous.

However, the court reversed the summary judgment concerning the personal injury protection and property damage claims. The 3d DCA held that the "named driver exclusion" provision could not bar those claims because those coverages were mandated by statute.

 

 

This summary was prepared by Derek Bush of our firm.


Derek Bush

 

 


39 Fla. L. Weekly D61b

 

Insurance -- Commercial vehicle -- Coverage -- Trial court properly entered summary judgment finding no coverage for bodily injury claims arising out of accident pursuant to named driver exclusion provision of policy where commercial vehicle was being driven by a person who had not been added as a driver after the policy was obtained -- Trial court erred in finding no personal injury protection or property damage coverage, because those coverages are statutorily mandated

PABLO A. ANTONELLI, Appellant, v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, PATRICK LORZEILLE, OSVALDO M. DE DOMINGO, PAOLA FABRIZO, ZULEIMA JOSEFA DE HAROS CUADROS, and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, etc., Appellees. 3rd District. Case No. 3D12-1656. L.T. Case No. 11-5415. January 2, 2014. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ellen L. Leesfield, Judge. Counsel: Arthur J. Morburger, for appellant. Michael J. Neimand, for United Automobile Insurance Company.

(Before SUAREZ, LAGOA and EMAS, JJ.)

(SUAREZ, J.) Pablo Antonelli seeks to reverse a final summary judgment in favor of United Automobile Insurance Company ("UA"). We affirm in part and reverse in part.

We affirm that part of the final judgment finding no coverage for any bodily injury claims arising out of the accident in question pursuant to the unambiguous named driver exclusion provision agreed to by Mr. Antonelli at the time he obtained the commercial vehicle insurance policy. At the time of the accident, the commercial vehicle was being driven by Osvaldo M. De Domingo, who had not been added as a driver after the policy was obtained. Therefore, pursuant to the named driver exclusion, the policy does not provide bodily injury coverage for any claims due to the accident. We reverse, however, that portion of the final judgment finding no personal injury protection ("PIP") or property damage coverage under the policy at issue because, as UA correctly points out, those particular coverages are statutorily mandated. § 627.736, Fla. Stat. (2013); § 324.022, Fla. Stat. (2013); see United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Reece, 4 So. 3d 80 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.







* * *