Sommerville v. Allstate Insurance Co., 65 So. 3d 558

Sommerville sues Allstate for uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) benefits arising from injuries while riding a motorcycle rented by Pavili Installations.
Pavili was the named insured; Sommerville is Pavili's company president; the motorcycle was not listed as a vehicle for which Pavili paid premiums.
The policy has two classes of insureds; Pavili is Class I, Sommerville is Class II as a non-named occupant with permission to use a covered auto.
Liability coverage and UM coverage definitions both extend protection to persons occupying a covered auto, but UM coverage terms reference a narrower set of ‘covered autos’ than liability.
Declarations show premiums for two Pavili trucks (designated as 7: specifically described autos); the rented motorcycle falls under designation 8 (hired autos) for liability but not explicitly for UM.
Trial court granted summary judgment limiting UM to designation 7; court reverses, holding UM coverage follows the liability definition of ‘covered autos’ and cannot be narrowed for UM in the way attempted here.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Sommerville is an UM insured under the policy.	Sommerville is a Class II insured occupying a covered auto and may obtain UM coverage if the motorcycle is a covered auto for UM.	UM coverage is only for designation 7 vehicles; the motorcycle is designation 8 and not eligible for UM.	UM coverage extends to Sommerville; UM is not limited to designation 7 vehicles.
Whether the policy unlawfully limits UM by using a narrower ‘covered autos’ definition for UM than for liability.	Limiting UM to specific vehicles while liability covers more is impermissible under §627.727.	The policy may limit UM per §627.727(9) and designate which vehicles are UM; the limitation is valid.	Limitation by vehicle is impermissible; UM follows liability’s broader vehicle definition.
Whether the exclusion of UM for specific vehicles violates §627.727(1) and related caselaw (Varro, Mosca).	UM cannot be excluded for specific individuals or vehicles in a way that reduces its statutory protection.	The named insured elected to cap UM for certain vehicles; this is allowed under the statute.	Exclusion of UM for a particular vehicle is not authorized; court remands.

Mullis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 252 So.2d 229 (Fla. 1971) (two classes of insureds; UM protection applies to statutory purposes)
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Warren, 678 So.2d 324 (Fla. 1996) (defines Class II insureds and their status)
Quirk v. Anthony, 568 So.2d 710 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (recognizes two classes of insureds and UM scope)
Florida Farm Bureau Cas. Co. v. Hurtado, 587 So.2d 1314 (Fla. 1991) (illustrates uninsured motorist principles)
Salas v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 272 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1972) (UM statute broad protection for citizens)
Gilmore v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 708 So.2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (UM not to be whittled away by exclusions)
Armstrong v. Allstate Ins. Co., 712 So.2d 788 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (UM protection cannot be undermined by general exclusions)
Varro v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 854 So.2d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (limitation on UM for particular individuals improper)
Mosca v. Globe Indem., 693 So.2d 674 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (UM coverage cannot be narrowed by liability-definitions unless clear statutory allowance)
Flores v. Allstate Ins. Co., 819 So.2d 740 (Fla. 2002) (UM limitations must align with statutory purposes)
New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. Addison, 169 So.2d 877 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964) (interpret policy language in light of greater indemnity)
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 756 So.2d 29 (Fla. 2000) (insurance contracts construed by plain language)