Background

• Menendez, the named insured, permitted her granddaughter to use her vehicle; the granddaughter was involved in an accident causing injuries to herself and to the Llaneses and Menendez.
• At the time, the granddaughter and her parents resided together, but Menendez lived at a separate address; the accident occurred outside the named insured's household.
• State Farm relied on the household exclusion in Coverage A to deny coverage for the Llaneses' bodily injuries.
• The policy defines insureds and relatives, and the exclusion states no coverage for bodily injury to any insured or any member of an insured's family residing in the insured's household.
• The Third District held the household exclusion ambiguous and interpreted it in the insured's favor, conflicting with Linehan v. Alkhabbaz.
• Florida Supreme Court granted review to resolve express and direct conflict and held that the household exclusion unambiguously excludes coverage for household members of a permissive-driver insured.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Linehan v. Alkhabbaz, 398 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (household exclusion applies to injuries of household members of a permissive driver)
• Webb v. American Fire & Casualty Co., 148 Fla. 714, 5 So. 2d 252 (1941) (insurer liable where exclusion uses defined term 'the insured' including permissive users)
• Travelers Indem. Co. v. PCR Inc., 889 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 2004) (plain meaning governs; ambiguity if language provides coverage and non-coverage meanings)
• Swire Pac. Holdings v. Zurich Ins. Co., 845 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 2003) (policy ambiguity standard)
• Penzer v. Transp. Ins. Co., 29 So. 3d 1000 (Fla. 2010) (ambiguity analysis for insurance policy language)
• Garcia v. Fed. Ins. Co., 969 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 2007) (interpretation of insurance contracts in light of definitions)
• Grant v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 638 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 1994) (interpret policy language with defined terms)
• Webb v. American Fire & Casualty Co., 5 So. 2d 252 (1941) (see above)