Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Amica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wells
Citations: 507 So. 2d 750; 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1307; 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8300Docket: 86-843
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; May 21, 1987; Florida; State Appellate Court
Amica Mutual Insurance Co. appealed an amended partial summary judgment favoring Sylvan Wells, representative of the estates of Dan and Sondra Pickens, regarding insurance coverage after the Pickens were killed in an automobile accident in 1983. Amica had issued an insurance policy for the deceased's vehicle and denied liability claims based on a family exclusion clause, which barred claims between family members. The personal representative subsequently sought a declaratory judgment for uninsured motorist coverage, arguing that liability coverage was available and that interspousal immunity did not apply. The trial court ruled that the family exclusion clause was invalid, thus entitling the Pickens to liability coverage. It also determined that the Pickens’ other insured vehicles provided uninsured motorist coverage if liability coverage was absent or insufficient. Amica contested the trial court's decision, specifically challenging the invalidation of the family exclusion clause, which excluded coverage for bodily injury to the insured, their spouse, or relatives residing in the same household. Citing Florida Supreme Court precedents, the court noted that family exclusion clauses are generally valid unless a statute explicitly prohibits them. Previous rulings indicated that such exclusions serve to prevent collusion in claims and allow insurance companies to manage premiums based on potential liability exposure. The personal representative argues that the rationale for interspousal immunity, which applies when both parties are alive, does not apply when both are deceased, as there is no risk of collusion or need to maintain family unity. Citing Dressler v. Tubbs and Brooks v. Sturiano, he contends that the policy reasons for this immunity cease to exist posthumously, allowing the deceased's estate to pursue claims. The family exclusion clause in insurance has been upheld even when one party is deceased, as illustrated in Linehan v. Alkhabbaz, where the court affirmed a summary judgment favoring State Farm. The representative also contends that Florida's Financial Responsibility Law prohibits family exclusion clauses. However, Zipperer v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. found such clauses do not violate Florida public policy. The court agrees, stating that while laws promote protection for accident victims, the reasons for allowing family exclusion are equally significant and should be addressed legislatively, not judicially. The trial court's decision to recognize uninsured motorist coverage was challenged. Although the insurance for three vehicles was under one document, the court determined there were three separate policies due to additional premiums for each vehicle. Citing Curtin and Jernigan, the court noted that uninsured motorist coverage can exist under separate policies even if one vehicle is involved in the accident. In addressing family immunity doctrine, the court concluded that it still bars suits between spouses and that, under Florida law, family exclusion clauses are valid. The case Allstate Insurance Company v. Dascoli, which allowed recovery under a second policy after an injury in a vehicle driven by a spouse, was quashed by the Florida Supreme Court, affirming that family exclusion clauses remain enforceable. Ultimately, the court holds that neither liability nor uninsured motorist coverage is available to the spouses, irrespective of who caused the accident. The decision is reversed.