Masters v. LesterMasters v. Lester
Karl Barry MASTERS and Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Appellant,
v.
Latona LESTER, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
*472 Robert O. Wilhelm, Jacksonville, for appellant.
Wayne Hogan, Jacksonville, for appellee.
BOOTH, Judge.
This сause is before us on interlocutory appeal from the order of the Circuit Court in Duval County, granting partial summary final judgmеnt in favor of appellee on her claim for uninsured motorist coverage. The sole question presented is whеther the trial court correctly rules that amounts of insurance paid to the plaintiff for liability and for personal injury рrotection would not be set off against the available uninsured motorist coverage.
The facts are that plаintiff Lester was injured while a passenger in her own automobile which was being operated with her consent at the time of the accident by defendant Karl Barry Masters. Plaintiff's insurer, Aetnа Casualty & Surety Company, afforded liability coverage for Masters under the omnibus clause of plaintiff's policy and paid plaintiff the $10,000 liability limits of that policy. Personal injury protection benefits were also paid plaintiff by her insurer in the аmount of $5,000. Plaintiff then claimed uninsured motorist coverage whiсh was determined by the court to be $20,000 in amount.[1]
The trial court hеld that, assuming plaintiff's damages equaled or exceedеd $35,000, she would be entitled to the entire $20,000 uninsured motorist coverаge, unreduced by the $15,000 previously paid under the same policy. We reverse.
The policy in question contains the fоllowing provision as to uninsured/underinsured coverage:
"LIMITS OF LIABILITY:
(b) Any amоunt payable under the terms of this coverage becаuse of bodily injury sustained in an accident by a person who is an Insured under this Coverage shall be reduced by:
(1) All sums paid on account of such bodily injury by or on behalf of (i) the owner or operator of the uninsured automobile and (ii) any other person or organization jointly or severally liable together with such owner or operator for such bodily injury including all sums paid under the Liability Coverage..."
We hold that under the above-quoted provision, amounts previously paid under the poliсy reduce the uninsured/underinsured coverage available under the policy. This is in accord with Florida Statute § 627.727(1), as most recently interpreted by the Supreme Court in Dewberry v. Auto Owners Insurance Company,
"Our decision entitles appellee tо the full amount of coverage that her husband *473 purchasеd. The purpose of the uninsured/underinsured motorist coverаge is to enable an insured to recover under his or her policy of insurance for damages that he or she would have been able to recover against the negligent mоtorist if that motorist had maintained a policy of liability insurance."
To like effect are the decisions of this Court in Main Insurance Company v. Wiggins,
Accordingly, the judgment sought to be reviewed is REVERSED and the cause REMANDED for entry of a judgment consistent herewith.
McCORD, C.J., and MELVIN, J., concur.
NOTES
Notes
[1] This part of the decision below is not before us on appeal.