UNITED V. REECE

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Third District Court » 2009 » UNITED V. REECE

UNITED V. REECE

State: Florida

Court: Florida Third District Court

Docket No: 08-1726

Case Date: 03/04/2009

Preview:Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2009
Opinion filed March 4, 2009. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D08-1726 Lower Tribunal No. 07-33700 ________________

United Automobile Insurance Company, a Florida corporation,
Appellant, vs.

Carlos Reece, Angela Reece, and Jack Marin,
Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, David C. Miller, Judge. Michael J. Neimand, for appellant. Ford, Dean & Mallard and William A. Dean, for appellees. Before WELLS, SUAREZ, and SALTER, JJ. SUAREZ, J. United Automobile Insurance Company ("United Auto") appeals a final summary judgment providing automobile bodily injury coverage in favor of the

appellee, Jack Marin. We reverse. The policy in question provides separate coverage for bodily injury and property damage liability. Therefore, United Auto is not collaterally estopped from contesting bodily injury coverage where it has paid the property damage liability claim of Marin. Carlos Reece's 1998 Chevrolet Cavalier was insured under a policy of automobile insurance with United Auto from October 6, 2006, through October 6, 2007. The declaration page of the policy shows that Mr. Reece paid separate insurance premiums for bodily injury liability, property damage liability and personal injury protection ("PIP"). Mr. Reece listed his wife, Angela Reece, as a driver under the Named Driver Exclusion. 1 Under the exclusion, none of the coverages provided by the policy were available to Ms. Reece while operating the automobile except for PIP and property damage liability. While driving the

insured motor vehicle, on March 24, 2007, Ms. Reece was involved in an

1

Named Driver Exclusion This means that none of the coverage, except for Personal Injury Protection Damage afforded by the policy, will apply to any damage, losses or claims of any persons or organization caused while any motor vehicle insured by this policy is being used or operated by the excluded driver(s) listed below. Coverage for claims under Liability for Property Damage arising from an accident or loss that occurs while a vehicle is being operated by the excluded driver(s) shall be limited to $10,000. 2

automobile accident with Jack Marin. Marin sued the Reeces for negligence, claiming damages for bodily injury and property damage to his vehicle. Marin and United Auto, on behalf of the Reeces, settled his property damage liability claim and executed a release in exchange for the payment of $400.00. 2 United Auto then brought a separate declaratory action to determine if the policy provided coverage for Marin's bodily injury claim against the Reeces. On March 20, 2008, based on the Named Driver Exclusion, United Auto filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that the policy did not afford bodily injury liability coverage for the accident. Marin filed a Response and Cross Motion for Summary Judgment on grounds that United Auto was collaterally estopped from denying bodily injury liability coverage because it had settled and paid the property damage claim. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Marin, finding the loss covered under the policy. We disagree with the trial court and reverse. It is well settled that an automobile insurance policy with separate coverages and separate premiums for property damage, PIP, and bodily injury is a divisible policy. See Flores v. Allstate Ins. Co., 819 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 2002). Under a divisible automobile insurance policy, an insurer may properly be obligated to pay one type of benefit without being obligated to pay another type of benefit. See Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Race, 508 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) Marin admits that the question of coverage for his bodily injury claim had not been previously litigated in the negligence action he brought against the Reeces. 3
2

(determining that carrier was not collaterally estopped from denying uninsured motorist benefits by paying PIP benefits), approved, 542 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 1989). Thus, United Auto's payment of the property damage claim does not render it collaterally estopped from denying bodily injury coverage based on the Named Driver Exclusion. Moreover, exclusionary denial of coverage for property damage does not apply because coverage for property damage is mandatory pursuant to Florida's Financial Responsibility Law.

Download UNITED V. REECE.pdf