Travelers Commercial Insurance v. Harrington
86 So. 3d 1274
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Harrington sustained injuries as a passenger in a car owned by her father and insured under a Travelers policy; the car was being operated by a permissive user with liability coverage under a Nationwide policy.
- The Travelers policy included both liability and uninsured motorist (UM) coverage; Harrington’s medical costs exceeded the combined payments from Nationwide and Travelers liability, prompting a UM claim.
- Travelers denied UM benefits based on a family-vehicle exclusion stating UM coverage does not apply to vehicles owned by the named insured or family members and regularly available for their use.
- The trial court held the family-vehicle exclusion conflicted with Florida’s mandatory UM requirements under 627.727(3) and granted summary judgment for Harrington on coverage, including medical-cost underinsured triggers.
- The court also addressed stacking under 627.727(9), determining mother’s non-stacking election did not bind Harrington, and entered summary judgment for $300,000 in UM benefits, later reversed in part; fee award tied to the benefits was also reversed.
- The appellate court affirmed the coverage ruling, reversed the amount of UM benefits, and certified questions of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the family-vehicle exclusion conflicts with 627.727(3) in a single-vehicle accident | Harrington argues exclusion conflicts with 627.727(3)(b)-(c) and is invalid | Travelers contends the exclusion is consistent with Mullis and Warren | Yes; exclusion conflicts and is invalid for UM in this scenario. |
| Whether UM benefits are stackable when the insured did not sign a non-stacking election | Harrington claims full stacking applies to her policy | Travelers argues non-stacking election by the policyholder binds all insureds under 627.727(9) | Partial: coverage affirmed, stacking issue resolved against Harrington; non-stacking election does not bind all insureds in this scenario. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mullis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 252 So.2d 229 (Fla. 1971) (UM exclusion invalid without express rejection when conflicting with mandatory UM requirements)
- Travelers Ins. Co. v. Warren, 678 So.2d 324 (Fla.1996) (class I vs class II insureds; interpretation of 627.727(3))
- Mercury Insurance Co. of Florida v. Sherwin, 982 So.2d 1266 (Fla.4th DCA 2008) (non-stacking election must be shown by insurer; agency law considerations on form language)
- Sommerville v. Allstate Ins. Co., 65 So.3d 558 (Fla.2d DCA 2011) (application of Mullis principles in UM disputes)
- Diaz-Hernandez v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 19 So.3d 996 (Fla.3d DCA 2009) (UM coverage interpretations under 627.727)