05-2881 BETHEL V. SECURITY NATIONAL

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Third District Court » 2006 » 05-2881 BETHEL V. SECURITY NATIONAL

State: Florida

Court: Florida Third District Court

Docket No: 05-2881 BETHEL V. SECURITY NATIONAL

Case Date: 12/20/2006

Preview:NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, A.D. 2006

GREGORY BETHEL, Appellant, vs. SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

** ** ** ** ** ** LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 05-09118 CASE NO. 3D05-2881

Opinion filed December 20, 2006. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Michael A. Genden, Judge. Beckham appellants. & Beckham, and Robert J. Beckham, Jr., for

Hinshaw & Culbertson, and James H. Wyman; Hinshaw & Culbertson, and Maureen G. Pearcy, and Ronald L. Kammer, for appellee.

Before GREEN, RAMIREZ, and SUAREZ, JJ. RAMIREZ, J. The defendant, Gregory Bethel, appeals the trial court's final summary judgment entered in favor of plaintiff, Security

National insurance appellants

Insurance coverage Gregory

Company, for Bethel an and

determining automobile Laika

that

there

is

no

accident

involving We reverse

Fernandez.

because the passenger in this case, Laika Fernandez, did not meet the household exclusion for a "member of the family." Security National, the insurance company, issued an

automobile insurance policy to Evelyn Bethel, Gregory Bethel's wife, for the policy period running from February 21, 2005

through August 21, 2005. person and $300,000 per

The policy had a limit of $100,000 per accident in bodily injury liability

coverage. policy.

Both Evelyn and Gregory were listed as drivers on the The policy covered two vehicles, a 2003 Chevy Tahoe and Gregory was the owner of the Chevy Tahoe.

a 2002 Toyota Camry.

Security National's policy in question provides coverage for bodily injury coverage with limits of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident. as the following: Family member means a person related to you by blood, marriage or adoption who is a resident of your household, including a ward or foster child, provided said family member does not own a private passenger auto. The policy's liability part reads, in pertinent part: We will pay damages for bodily injury or property damage for which any covered person becomes legally responsible because of an accident. We will settle or defend, as we The policy defines "family member"

2

consider appropriate, any claim asking for these damages. . . .

or

suit

The household exclusion in Part A of the policy provides that Security National does not provide liability coverage: 11. For bodily injury, property damage or death sustained by any insured or any member of the family of an insured residing in the same household as the insured. The policy states that words and phrases defined in the policy are boldfaced when used. While the term "family member" is

boldfaced in the policy, the words "any member of the family" are not. On March 26, 2005, Gregory was driving the Chevy Tahoe and was involved in a single-car accident causing injury to Laika, Evelyn's sister, who was a passenger in the car. Laika was

residing with Gregory and Evelyn at the time of the accident. When Evelyn, the policyholder, originally applied for the The

insurance, Laika was not residing at the Bethels' home.

only adults residing in the Bethels' home at that time were Gregory and Evelyn. In August 2004, Laika temporarily moved in with Gregory and Evelyn. When Laika moved into the Bethels' house, she had her She

own car, which she used as a private passenger automobile.

separately maintained her own automobile insurance on this car during the entire time that she lived with the Bethels. When

the March 26, 2005 accident occurred, Laika still owned the 2004

3

Chevrolet automobile,

Cavalier while

and

used

it her

as own

a

private separate

passenger automobile

maintaining

insurance on her car. Following the accident, Laika asserted a claim against

Gregory for the $100,000 limit of the policy. Security National denied coverage based on

In response, the "household

exclusion," that precludes bodily injury coverage to "members of the family" of an insured who reside in the same household as the insured. Security National then brought a declaratory

judgment action to determine its obligations to provide coverage to Laika under the policy. In its motion for summary judgment, Security National

asserted that there was no coverage under the policy because of the household exclusion. summary judgment. The trial court agreed and granted

We reverse.

In this case of first impression, we conclude that there is at least sufficient ambiguity to find coverage. The policy

contains a common sense definition of a "family member" as "a person related to you by blood, marriage or adoption who is a resident of your household, including a ward or foster child." It then adds, "provided said family member does not own a

private passenger auto."

The logic of this is that such a

family member who owns his or her own auto would carry separate insurance and would not be increasing the risk to the insurer.

4

The exclusion that Security National relies upon provides: We do not provide Liability Coverage: . . . . 11. For bodily injury, property damage or death sustained by any insured or any member of the family of an insured residing in the same household as the insured. (emphasis added). It does not take a great deal of proficiency

in English to learn that a "member of the family" and a "family member" are interchangeable terms to an ordinary speaker.

Security National would have us change ordinary English usage by the use of boldfaced type. This we refuse to do.

Courts generally try to construe an automobile insurance policy based on the definitions in the policy. Grant v. State The

Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 638 So. 2d 936, 937 (Fla. 1994).

scope and extent of insurance coverage is determined by the language and terms of the policy. Roberts v. Fla. Lawyers Mut. See also

Ins. Co., 839 So. 2d 843, 845 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 756 So. 2d 29, 34 (Fla. 2000) ("Florida law provides that insurance contracts are construed in accordance with the plain language of the policies . . . ."). Furthermore, under Florida law, the words used in an insurance policy are to be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Rigby

v. Underwriters At Lloyd's, London, 907 So. 2d 1187, 1188, n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).

5

Giving the words their ordinary import, we conclude that a "family member" is the same thing as a "member of the family" and that this is clear from the plain meaning of the words in the policy. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Castillo, 829 So. 2d

242, 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) ("[T]erms utilized in an insurance policy should be given their plain and unambiguous meaning as understood by the `man-on-the-street.'"). See also Steele v.

Kinsey, 801 So. 2d 297, 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Lindheimer v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 643 So. 2d 636, 638 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) ("[T]he terms of the contract must be given their everyday meaning and read in light of the skill and experience of ordinary people."). We can find no case in Florida stating

that bold print changes the meanings of words. First, Security National defined the term "family member" to exclude those members of the household who own their own private passenger automobiles. Laika owned her own private passenger

automobile when the accident occurred and was therefore not a member of the family under Security National's definition.

France v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 380 So. 2d 1155, 1156 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (enforcing policy definition excluding those owning "a private passenger automobile"); Gilligan v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 265 So. 2d 543, 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). See generally 8

Lee R. Russ & Thomas F. Segalla, Couch on Insurance 3d

Download 05-2881 BETHEL V. SECURITY NATIONAL.pdf