OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY v. ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., 18-2309

James M. Horne, Jr. lived with his mother and stepfather, who were insured under an Owners Insurance policy.
The Owners policy defined covered "resident relatives" but expressly excluded resident relatives who owned an automobile from UM coverage.
Horne owned a vehicle at the time of his accident; Allstate (his insurer) sued Owners and Horne seeking a declaration that Owners' policy provided UM coverage for Horne's injuries.
The trial court granted final summary judgment for Allstate; Owners appealed.
Owners did not obtain the statutorily required "informed acceptance" or offer a reduced premium under section 627.727(9) for any UM exclusion.
The central legal question: whether UM coverage must be extended to a resident relative who owns a vehicle when the policy does not provide that relative liability coverage (and thus whether the statutory subsection (9) safeguards apply).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an insurer may exclude a resident relative who owns a vehicle from UM coverage without complying with §627.727(9) when the policy does not provide liability coverage to that relative	Allstate: The exclusion is invalid because Owners failed to obtain informed acceptance or offer reduced premium required by §627.727(9)	Owners: §627.727(9) is inapplicable because the policy never provided Horne liability coverage; he is not an "insured thereunder" entitled to mandatory UM equivalence	Court held the exclusion was valid; because Horne owned a car and was not provided liability coverage under the policy, Owners was not required to extend UM coverage to him, so Allstate’s challenge failed
Whether Horne was an "insured thereunder" entitled to UM as the reciprocal of liability coverage	Allstate: Horne is a resident relative and should receive UM under the policy	Owners: Horne owned a vehicle and thus was not an insured under the policy's liability provisions; UM need not be extended	Court held Horne was not an insured under the liability provisions; UM reciprocity did not apply, so Owners need not extend UM coverage

Tara Woods SPE, LLC v. Cashin, 116 So. 3d 492 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (standard of review for legal questions)
Flores v. Allstate Ins. Co., 819 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 2002) (UM coverage is reciprocal equivalent of liability coverage)
Mullis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 252 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 1971) (principles on UM as reciprocal of liability)
Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Douglas, 654 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 1995) (statutory requirements for limiting UM: notice, informed acceptance, reduced premium)
Sterling v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 936 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (§627.727 does not mandate inclusion of specific persons as insureds)
France v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 380 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (resident who owned a car was not an insured under a policy that excluded owners)
Lewis v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 503 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (UM must be extended only to those included in basic liability coverage)
Coleman v. Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 517 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 1988) (UM protects named insured and family members who are insured)
Rando v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., 39 So. 3d 244 (Fla. 2010) (discussion reflecting limits of subsection (9) relative to subsection (1))