From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kiertekles v. Manchester Ins. Indem

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Dec 9, 1975
323 So. 2d 317 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)

Opinion

No. 75-275.

December 9, 1975.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, James H. Earnest, J.

Bernstein Robrish, Coconut Grove, for appellant.

Vernis Bowling and Ronald J. Raffony, Coconut Grove, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C.J., and PEARSON and HAVERFIELD, JJ.


The plaintiff, Raymond Kiertekles, appeals the dismissal of his complaint by the trial court upon motion of defendant Manchester Insurance Indemnity Company. He argues that he was the driver of a rental car in which his co-adventurer was a passenger and that he was entitled to uninsured motorist benefits under a personal policy of insurance owned by the passenger. The trial court held that the contract of insurance of the passenger did not contain uninsured motorist coverage for the benefit of plaintiff. The policy of insurance on which Kiertekles sought recovery was independent and separate from the rental agreement.

We hold that the trial court correctly determined that uninsured motorist coverage was not included for Kiertekles under the terms of the policy or the statute providing for uninsured motorist coverage. See Fla. Stat. § 627.727; Mullis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., Fla. 1971, 252 So.2d 229; cf. Cavalier Insurance Corporation v. Bailey, Fla.App. 1974, 292 So.2d 67.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Kiertekles v. Manchester Ins. Indem

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Dec 9, 1975
323 So. 2d 317 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)
Case details for

Kiertekles v. Manchester Ins. Indem

Case Details

Full title:RAYMOND KIERTEKLES, APPELLANT, v. THE MANCHESTER INSURANCE INDEMNITY…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Dec 9, 1975

Citations

323 So. 2d 317 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)