Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; September 26, 1997; Florida; State Appellate Court
Progressive Insurance Company appealed a summary judgment from a declaratory judgment action regarding insurance coverage for Taylor Wesley, who was killed in an automobile accident while a passenger in his mother's car. The trial court found the term "relative" in the insurance policy ambiguous, leading to a decision that favored coverage. Progressive sought a declaration that Taylor was not covered under the policy issued to his mother, Elizabeth Wesley, who had died. Stephen Wesley, Taylor's father and personal representative of his estate, demanded payment under Elizabeth's Progressive policy.
At the time of the accident, Stephen had primary residential custody of Taylor, but both parents shared parental responsibilities, with Taylor staying at his mother's house every other weekend and for part of the week. Elizabeth's policy contained a liability limit of $250,000 per person and an exclusion for bodily injury to the insured or a relative, defined as someone living in the household and related by blood, marriage, or adoption.
The court concluded that while Taylor was related to Elizabeth by blood, the ambiguity of "living in your household" warranted interpretation in favor of coverage. The trial court noted that although Taylor primarily resided with Stephen, it was reasonable to consider that he also lived with Elizabeth given his established presence and personal belongings at her home. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling, emphasizing the necessity to accept the interpretation that favored the insured.
The insurer is responsible for clearly articulating any exclusions in the policy. In Meister v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., it was emphasized that exclusions must be stated in unmistakable language. Progressive Insurance references Alava v. Allstate Ins. Co., which established that children of divorced parents can be considered residents of both households. In Alava, a minor child living with the mother, but spending weekends with the father, was initially deemed a resident of only the mother’s household and thus excluded from the father’s policy coverage. However, the appellate court reversed this, affirming the child's residency in both homes and entitlement to coverage.
In interpreting policies, courts favor broad construction for grants of coverage and narrow construction for exclusions. The Alava case focused on a grant of coverage, while the present case involves an exclusion, necessitating a narrow interpretation. This approach aligns with California appellate court rulings, such as in National Auto. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Underwood, where an exclusionary clause's ambiguity was interpreted against the insurer. Consequently, the term "relative" in Mrs. Wesley's policy is found ambiguous, leading to the conclusion that Taylor Wesley is not excluded from coverage under her policy with Progressive. Judges BLUE and NORTHCUTT concurred with this determination.
