Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves a dispute over the extent of uninsured motorist coverage under an automobile insurance policy following a fatal accident. Mary Clohessy and her son, Liam, witnessed the death of Brendan Clohessy, struck by an uninsured motorist in Connecticut. The family held a policy with Allstate Insurance Company, issued in Florida, which provided coverage limits of $200,000 per person and $600,000 per accident. After Brendan's estate exhausted the per-person limit, Mary and Liam sought coverage for emotional distress. Allstate filed for declaratory judgment, asserting the policy limits were exhausted. The district court applied Florida law, given the policy's issuance in Florida, and ruled that the emotional distress claims were subject to the same per-person limit as Brendan's bodily injury claim, thus denying further recovery. Due to varying interpretations in other jurisdictions and the absence of a controlling Florida precedent, the court certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court on whether emotional distress claims are subject to the per-person limit, seeking clarity on this pivotal issue.
Legal Issues Addressed
Certification of Questions to State Supreme Courtsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court due to the lack of controlling precedent on whether emotional distress claims are subject to the per-person limit.
Reasoning: Given the lack of clear precedent in Florida and the significance of the question to the appeal, the court certifies the following question to the Supreme Court of Florida: whether the emotional distress damages claimed by Mary K. Clohessy and Liam Clohessy are subject to the single each person limit applied to Brendan Clohessy.
Choice of Law in Insurance Contractssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that Florida law governs the interpretation of the insurance contract because the policy was established in Florida.
Reasoning: Under Florida law, as established in Sturiano v. Brooks, the terms of automobile insurance policies are governed by the jurisdiction where the contract was formed, which is Florida in this case.
Uninsured Motorist Coverage Limitssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied the 'each person' limit of the uninsured motorist coverage to all claims arising from a single incident, including emotional distress claims.
Reasoning: The district court ruled that under Florida law, the per-person limit applied to the emotional distress claims as well, determining that the policy limits were indeed exhausted.