Comesanas v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co.Comesanas v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co.
Jorge COMESANAS and Harriet Comesanas, his wife, Appellants,
v.
AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Mark G. Morgan, M.D. of Law Offices of Rood & Morgan, Tampa, for Appellants.
Daniel F. Pilka of Sawyer & Pilka, P.A., Brandon, for Appellee.
FRANK, Acting Chief Judge.
Jorge Comesanas and Harriet Comesanas appeal from the summary judgment which determined that their uninsured motorist carrier, Auto-Owners Insurance Company *119 (Auto-Owners), was not liable for damages resulting from an accident with a bus owned by Hartline, a self-insured public carrier. We affirm because the Comesanas' uninsured motorist policy specifically excludes from coverage vehicles owned and operated by a self-insurer.
On November 27, 1991, Mr. Comesanas was involved in an automobile accident with a bus owned by Hartline and operated by its employee. Hartline, a public transportation system serving Hillsborough County, is self-insured as a subdivision of a municipality pursuant to section 768.28(15)(a), Florida Statutes (1993). The Comesanas sued Hartline on a theory of negligence and sued Auto-Owners for uninsured motorist coverage. Auto-Owners moved for summary judgment, claiming that the Hartline bus was not an "uninsured motor vehicle" because of Hartline's status as a self-insured subdivision of a municipality.
The coverage portion of the Auto-Owners policy defines an "uninsured motor vehicle" as follows: "[a]n `uninsured motor vehicle' does not include any vehicle ... (2) owned or operated by a self-insurer under any applicable motor vehicle law, (3) owned by any governmental unit or agency."
The trial court entered final summary judgment in favor of Auto-Owners, relying upon Amica Mutual Ins. Co. v. Amato,
Affirmed.
PATTERSON and FULMER, JJ., concur.