Divine v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance

4 Citing cases

  1. Omar v. Allstate Insurance Co.

    632 So. 2d 214 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 11 times
    Holding that an insurer relying on the limitation authorized in section 627.727 has the burden of proving its compliance with the notice provisions

    Allstate takes the position that the exclusion quoted above is valid under Florida law, and it clearly applies to Omar because he was driving another vehicle he owned, for which he had uninsured motorist coverage under another policy issued by another insurance company. We think this case is controlled by Mullis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 252 So.2d 229 (Fla. 1971) and this court's decisions in Divine v. Prudential Property Casualty Insurance Co., 614 So.2d 683 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. dismissed, 618 So.2d 1369 (Fla. 1993) and Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Phillips, 609 So.2d 1385 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992), rev. granted, 620 So.2d 761 (Fla. 1993). In Mullis, the Florida Supreme Court held that whenever bodily injury is inflicted upon the named insured or insured's members of his family by the negligence of an uninsured motorist, under whatever conditions, locations, or circumstances, they are covered by uninsured motorist insurance.

  2. World Wide Underwriters Ins. v. Welker

    640 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 1994)   Cited 14 times
    Approving an exclusion for injuries suffered while occupying a vehicle owned by the insured, but not insured for uninsured motorist coverage under the same policy

    But, once an insurer provides liability coverage to an insured, it cannot then deprive that insured of uninsured motorist coverage by "the simple expedient of moving exclusionary language into the definition of who is `insured' under the policy." Divine v. Prudential Property Casualty Ins. Co., 614 So.2d 683, 683 (Fla. 5th DCA) review dismissed, 618 So.2d 1369 (Fla. 1993). "The statute is designed for the protection of injured persons, not for the benefit of insurance companies. . . ."

  3. Geico Indem. Co. v. Perez

    260 So. 3d 342 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 8 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Declining to apply conclusive presumption in UM rejection case because form did not strictly comply with content requirements prescribed in section 627.727 ; recognizing that court was not empowered "to make a judicial exception to what the legislature has expressly provided"

    In Mullis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 252 So.2d 229 (Fla. 1971), the Florida Supreme Court made it clear that whenever an insured is injured by a negligent uninsured/underinsured motorist, the insured has UM coverage under an automobile policy's UM provisions. "They may be pedestrians at the time of such injury, they may be riding in motor vehicles of others or in public conveyances and they may occupy vehicles ... owned by but which are not ‘insured automobiles’ of named insured. " Id. at 233 (emphasis added); see also Coleman v. Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, Inc., 517 So.2d 686, 689 (Fla. 1988) (same); Divine v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 614 So.2d 683, 683 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (concluding that an insurer cannot avoid the rule in Mullis simply by altering the definition of who is "insured" under the policy). Put another way, where an insured is injured while occupying an owned vehicle that is not listed on the policy, the insured is "entitled to uninsured motorist coverage even if he would not have been entitled to liability coverage had the accident in question been his fault."

  4. Beebe v. American Ambassador Cas. Co.

    659 So. 2d 701 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 1 times

    Clearly, if the setoff provision in American's policy were directed against uninsured motorist benefits so as to reduce them pro tanto as PIP or bodily injury, liability payments were made, there is little question such provisions would be found invalid. See Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. v. Lackore, 408 So.2d 1040 (Fla. 1982); Warren v. Travelers Insurance Co., 650 So.2d 1082 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Divine v. Prudential Property Casualty Insurance Co., 614 So.2d 683 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. dismissed, 618 So.2d 1369 (Fla. 1993). Section 627.727 provides as follows: