From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Ferro

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
May 15, 1991
581 So. 2d 605 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

holding that “once it was established that the [insureds'] damages were less than the policy limits of the tortfeasors' primary insurance coverage, and this is uncontested, it was also established that the [insurer] had no liability to the [insureds]”

Summary of this case from Neff v. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. of Hartford
See 3 Summaries

Opinion

No. 90-02527.

May 15, 1991.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County, Helen S. Hansel, J.

H. Shelton Philips of Kaleel Kaleel, P.A., St. Petersburg, for appellant.

Joseph M. Ciarciaglino, Jr. of Ciarciaglino, Paver Coyle, St. Petersburg, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, challenges the final judgments entered against it and in favor of the appellees, Marlene Ferro and John Ferro. We reverse.

The appellees filed a negligence action against two tort-feasors for injuries resulting from an automobile accident occurring in 1986. The appellant was named as a party defendant because it provided uninsured/underinsured coverage to the appellees. A verdict was returned against the two tort-feasors in an amount less than the primary insurance coverage provided to the tort-feasors. The trial court entered final judgments in favor of each of the appellees against the tort-feasors and the appellant, jointly and severally. The court reserved jurisdiction to award costs. This timely appeal followed.

We agree with the appellant's contention that once it was established that the appellees' damages were less than the policy limits of the tort-feasors' primary insurance coverage, and this is uncontested, it was also established that the appellant had no liability to the appellees. The trial court at that point should have entered a judgment for the appellant, and it erred by failing to do so. See Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Brewton, 538 So.2d 1375 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). We, accordingly, reverse and remand for the entry of judgments in favor of the appellant.

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

SCHOONOVER, C.J., and PARKER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.

Summaries of

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Ferro

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
May 15, 1991
581 So. 2d 605 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

holding that “once it was established that the [insureds'] damages were less than the policy limits of the tortfeasors' primary insurance coverage, and this is uncontested, it was also established that the [insurer] had no liability to the [insureds]”

Summary of this case from Neff v. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. of Hartford

holding that "once it was established that the [insureds'] damages were less than the policy limits of the tortfeasors' primary insurance coverage, and this is uncontested, it was also established that the [insurer] had no liability to the [insureds]"

Summary of this case from Neff v. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. of Hartford

determining that where the plaintiffs damages are less than the policy limits of the tortfeasor's primary insurance company, the UIM provider has no liability and the trial court should enter judgment on their behalf

Summary of this case from Allstate Ins. Co. v. Staszower
Case details for

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Ferro

Case Details

Full title:STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT, v. MARLENE…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: May 15, 1991

Citations

581 So. 2d 605 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

Citing Cases

Tursom v. United States

See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Vecchio, 744 So.2d 570, 570 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (holding “that the trial…

State Farm Mutual Auto. v. Marko

Further, State Farm's offer applies only to any potential recovery over and above Mayer's coverage of…

7 Citing Cases