Harmon v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.Harmon v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.
Bucklew, Ramsey & Stichter, Tampa, for appellant.
E. Robert Miller, Jr., of Miller & McKendree, Tampa, Luke R. Kaleel, St. Pеtersburg, and L. David Shear of Brown, Dixon & Shear, Tampa, for appellees.
HOBSON, Chief Judge.
The lower court dismissed plaintiff-appellant‘s amended complaint for declaratory judgment arising out of an accident with an uninsured motorist. The amended complaint sought to establish the coverage and liability of the appellee insurance company under the uninsured motorist provisions of its insurance policy.
Appelleе Spencer Bokor owned a certain automobile which was insured by the appellee insurance company. The policy contained, under Insuring Agreement III, uninsured automobile coverage. On January 9, 1968, the automobile was being driven by Bokor‘s minоr son, Michael Bokor, with appellant‘s minor son, Mylo Wayne Harmon, riding as a guest passenger. Appellant‘s amended complaint alleged that one Ralph George Martin carelessly and
Appellant received payment of the full policy limits frоm his insurance company under the uninsured motorist coverage of his policy. However, that amount was insufficient to compensate him for his damages resulting from the death of his son. Appellant then made a demand for payment from State Farm under the terms of appellee Bokor‘s policy. Appellant‘s son was an insured under that policy by virtue of the Definitions sectiоn of Insuring Agreement III:
“Insured — The unqualified word `insured’ means (2) any other person while occupying an insured automobile;”
State Farm advised the attorney for appellant that it had already paid out to other insureds the total of its liability, or $20,000. In effect, State Farm denied the claim.
The question this case presents appears to be one of first impression, and was framed as follows by the trial judge in his order dismissing appellant‘s amended complaint:
“Whether an insurance company may settle with two insureds in the full аmount of the policy limits, thereby exhausting the limits of the policy to the exclusion of another insured under the uninsured motorist provisiоns of said policy.”
Appellant contends that he is in a much different position as an insured under the policy than a third-party сlaimant against a liability insurer. As an insured, appellant contends that State Farm owes him a duty not to settle with other insureds, thereby exhausting its policy limits and excluding him without his knowledge or consent. Where the insurance company does so, appellant urges that such payments should be viewed merely as voluntary contributions to the other insureds, not to be charged against the policy limits, and not to affect his rights and remedies in any way. Although this argument is appealing, after careful consideration of this case, we must disagree with appellant.
Section
This statute was enacted tо place an insured under a policy of automobile liability insurance, who is injured as a result of the wrongdoing of an uninsured motorist, in the same position as if that uninsured motorist had maintained a policy of liability insurance with the minimum limits specified in
It is generally held that where multiple claims arise out of onе accident, the liability insurer has the right to enter reasonable settlements with some of those
“Whether multiple claims are to be treated one at a time or collected and evaluated together, is a choiсe solely within the discretion of the insurer.” (184 A.2d at 17)
In the case sub judice, if appellant were making a claim against a liability insurer which insured the person responsible for the death of appellant‘s son, according to the above-cited authorities he could not complain of the situation in which he finds himself. Florida‘s uninsured motorist statute was passed to place insureds who are injured by uninsured motorists in the same position as if those motorists had been insured. Appellant asks us to place him in a preferеntial position or make him better off than if the uninsured motorist had maintained liability insurance. This was not the intent of the legislature. See Chandler v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 342 F.2d 420, 421 (5th Cir.1965); Maryland Casualty Co. v. Howe, 213 A.2d 420, 422 (N.H. 1965).
Although we appreciate appellant‘s distinction betweеn claims of insureds under insurance policies and mere third-party claims against liability insurers, we feel that to impose a duty upоn insurers to ascertain all claimants under their uninsured motorist coverages before settling with any, and to require them to settle suсh claims at their peril is contrary to the policy of encouraging compromises and speedy settlements, and would do more harm than good.1 If such a duty is to be imposed under the uninsured motorist statute, it must be done by the legislature.2
The order appealed is therefore,
Affirmed.
LILES and McNULTY, JJ., concur.