Richard Rylee v. Progressive Gulf Insurance Company, 224 So. 3d 535

On Jan. 19, 2011 Richard Rylee was injured in a motorcycle collision; his wife Beth was not present and suffered no physical injury.
Three insurance policies were implicated: Brashier/State Farm (liability $25,000 per person), Richard/Progressive (UM $25,000 per person, $50,000 per accident), and Richard/USAA (two vehicles, $25,000 per person, $50,000 per accident).
State Farm paid its $25,000 liability limit to Richard; USAA tendered a total of $50,000 (stacked $25,000 per vehicle); Progressive offset its UM obligation by State Farm’s payment and paid nothing further.
Beth sued for loss of consortium against Brashier, Progressive, and USAA; Richard later sued as well; the cases were consolidated.
Progressive and USAA moved for summary judgment arguing Beth’s loss-of-consortium claim is included within the “each person” per-person policy limit that has already been paid; the circuit court granted summary judgment for the insurers and the Rylees appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a spouse’s loss-of-consortium claim can recover a separate “each person” per-person uninsured/underinsured motorist limit when only the injured spouse sustained bodily injury	Beth argued her loss-of-consortium claim is a separate and distinct cause of action entitling her to a separate per-person limit	Insurers argued the policies define the per-person limit to include derivative claims arising from the injured person’s bodily injury, so only one per-person limit applies when only one person was bodily injured	Court held the per-person limit covers all claims (including derivative loss-of-consortium) arising from the single injured person’s bodily injury; no separate per-person limit for Beth
Whether policy language or McCarthy/Pearthree authority requires treating loss-of-consortium as independent of per-person caps	Rylees relied on McCarthy’s language that loss-of-consortium is “separate and distinct” and Pearthree’s broad insured definition to claim entitlement to a separate limit	Insurers and court relied on policy text and controlling precedent (Acosta, Clemmer) that limits recovery by number of persons injured, not number of claimants or insureds	Court held McCarthy and Pearthree are inapposite to the per-person limit question; Acosta and Clemmer control and foreclose additional recovery

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Acosta, 479 So. 2d 1089 (1985) (per-person UM limit applies to all claims arising from a single injured person)
Old Sec. Cas. Ins. v. Clemmer, 455 So. 2d 781 (1984) (same principle limiting recovery to number of persons bodily injured)
Coho Resources v. McCarthy, 829 So. 2d 1 (2002) (discusses burden/proof for loss-of-consortium as a separate claim)
Pearthree v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 373 So. 2d 267 (1979) (broad insured-definition analysis)
Reid v. State Farm Mut. Ins., 784 F.2d 577 (5th Cir. 1986) (applies Acosta/Clemmer to reject separate per-person limit for consortium claim)