State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Bailey
203 So. 3d 995
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Patrick Bailey, employed by Claim Jumper, was struck and injured by an uninsured motorist while standing 10–20 feet from a running but stationary crane truck owned by his employer.
- Bailey was not operating the truck or crane at the time; he had been observing crane operation for ~30 minutes prior to being struck.
- Bailey sued Claim Jumper’s insurer, State Farm, seeking uninsured motorist (UM) coverage under Claim Jumper’s commercial auto policy with a Business Named Insured Endorsement.
- State Farm moved for summary judgment arguing Bailey was not an "insured" under the UM provision because he was not "occupying" the insured vehicle as defined by the policy.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Bailey, finding his constructive possession of the vehicle satisfied the policy’s occupancy requirement; parties then entered judgment for policy limits.
- The Second District reversed, holding that under the policy’s unambiguous definition of "occupying" ("in, on, entering or alighting from"), Bailey was too far removed in time and distance to be occupying the vehicle and thus not entitled to UM coverage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bailey was an "insured" under the UM provision at the time of injury | Bailey: Business Named Insured Endorsement and liability-section language make him an insured; constructive possession/being on jobsite equates to occupying | State Farm: UM coverage requires "occupying" as defined; Bailey was not in/on/entering/alighting from the vehicle | Held for State Farm — Bailey was not an insured under UM because he was not occupying the vehicle |
| Whether "occupying" in the policy is ambiguous | Bailey: argued endorsement interaction could render him covered | State Farm: "occupying" is unambiguous and limited to in/on/entering/alighting from vehicle | Held: "occupying" is unambiguous; court applies plain definition |
| Whether liability-coverage language in the endorsement transforms UM coverage scope | Bailey: Section 1 (liability) alters who is an insured and should affect UM coverage | State Farm: Liability-section definition irrelevant to UM entitlement; UM Section III controls | Held: Liability-section language is inapplicable; UM Section III governs and excludes Bailey |
| Standard for determining "occupying" (time/distance) | Bailey: proximity while working near vehicle suffices | State Farm: needs contemporaneous physical relation—touching or close proximity/time | Held: Time and distance matter; here separation precludes occupancy as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Young, 978 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 1st DCA) (summary-judgment review and relationship of person to vehicle controls "occupying")
- Above All Roofing, LLC v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 924 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA) ("occupying" unambiguous; no coverage where plaintiff was off vehicle and not in close proximity)
- Davis v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 463 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA) (cases treating "occupying" as requiring physical/temporal connection)
- Sommerville v. Allstate Ins. Co., 65 So. 3d 558 (Fla. 2d DCA) (distinguishes class I and class II insureds under commercial policies)