A foundational source for understanding Florida UM law is the Florida Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Mullis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 252 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 1971). While the majority opinion provides a thorough discussion of UM principles, the specific issue before the Court was whether a resident relative injured while operating a vehicle owned by another resident relative – where that vehicle was not insured under the UM policy – was nonetheless entitled to UM benefits. The policy expressly excluded such coverage. The trial court and First District Court of Appeal upheld the exclusion, relying on United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Webb, 191 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966).

The Florida Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the exclusion was contrary to the UM statute and therefore unenforceable. The Court explained:

“Whenever bodily injury is inflicted upon the named insured or insured members of his family by the negligence of an uninsured motorist – under whatever conditions, locations, or circumstances they may be in at the time – they are covered by uninsured motorist liability insurance issued pursuant to section 627.0851. They may be pedestrians, passengers in someone else’s vehicle, in public conveyances, or occupying vehicles (including motorcycles) owned by but not insured under the UM policy of the named insured.”

The Court emphasized that this broad coverage applies to the named insured and resident relatives, but does not extend equally to all others who may be permissive users or occupants of the insured vehicle. As the Court noted:

“These latter are protected only if they receive bodily injury due to the negligence of an uninsured motorist while they occupy the insured automobile of the named insured with his permission or consent.”

Legislative Caveat After Mullis

Following Mullis, the Legislature amended the UM statute. Section 627.727, Florida Statutes, now permits insurers to offer limitations on UM coverage—but only if specific statutory notice and acceptance requirements are met. See Carbonell v. Automobile Ins. Co., 562 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).

One key limitation in subsection (8)(d) provides:

The uninsured motorist coverage provided by the policy does not apply to the named insured or family members residing in her or his household who are injured while occupying any vehicle owned by such insureds for which uninsured motorist coverage was not purchased.

These limitations are enforceable only if (1) disclosed on a form approved by the Department of Insurance, and (2) knowingly accepted by the insured. Rejecting the limitation generally results in a higher premium.

Additional Important UM Issues in Florida

• Settlement with liability insurers
  Under section 627.727(6)(a), if an injured person (or personal representative) intends to settle with a tortfeasor and that settlement will not fully satisfy the claim, written notice of the proposed settlement must be sent by certified or registered mail to all UM carriers. Each UM carrier has 30 days to either approve the settlement or elect to preserve subrogation rights.
• Examinations Under Oath (EUOs)
  Most UM policies include contractual EUO provisions. Failure to appear or cooperate may result in a denial of UM benefits.
• Bad-faith actions
  Before filing a UM bad-faith lawsuit, the insured must obey the civil remedy requirements of section 624.155, Florida Statutes.

*********************************************************

Contact us toll free at 866-785-GALE or by email (jgale@jeffgalelaw.com & kgale@jeffgalelaw.com) for a free, confidential consultation to learn your legal rights.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. is a South Florida based law firm committed to the judicial system and to representing and obtaining justice for individuals – the poor, the injured, the forgotten, the voiceless, the defenseless and the damned, and to protecting the rights of such people from corporate and government oppression. We do not represent government, corporations or large business interests.

While prompt resolution of your legal matter is our goal, our approach is fundamentally different. Our clients are “people” and not “cases” or “files.” We take the time to build a relationship with our clients, realizing that only through meaningful interaction can we best serve their needs. In this manner, we have been able to best help those requiring legal representation.

An uninsured vehicle is one that does not maintain bodily injury coverage or, like a hit-and-run phantom vehicle, cannot be identified.

Interestingly, UM coverage may be available for injuries caused by road debris from an unknown source. However, the cases hold that the inference the debris came from another vehicle must be inescapable, or at least “outweigh all contrary inferences to such extent as to amount to a preponderance of all of the reasonable inferences that might be drawn from the same circumstances.” Voelker v. Combined Insurance Co. of America, 73 So.2d 403, 405 (Fla. 1954), citing King v. Weis-Patterson Lumber Co., 124 Fla. 272, 168 So. 858 (1936). See also Little v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 234 So.2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970).

In Allstate Insurance Company v. Bandiera, 512 So.2d 1082 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), the appellate court denied coverage to a passenger injured by a cinder block from an unknown source. It felt that it was just as plausible that the cinder block was thrown at the car by pedestrians standing at the side of the road.

In State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Hanania, 261 So.3d 684 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018), the court reached a different result by conluding that the inference a ladder fell from a motor vehicle was established to the exclusion of all other reasonable inferences. It pointed out that the bridge on which the accident happened was not a pedestrian bridge, that there were no overpasses over the bridge, and that the ladder was located at least a mile along the bridge.

The Hanania court felt that its inference was even stronger than the inference in Denoia v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co., 843 So.2d 285 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), in which “the Third District held that the plaintiff could seek uninsured motorist benefits for injuries he sustained when his vehicle was struck by a twelve to fifteen-foot steel beam lying in the highway where the only plausible explanation for its being on the roadway was that it had been improperly secured on a truck and had fallen from the truck onto the roadway.” Hanania at 687.

In Denoia, “the car in front of the plaintiff ran over a steel beam which was lying in the roadway. This propelled the beam up into the air, and it struck the plaintiff’s front bumper.” Id. at 286. The court decided that the only plausible explanation for the steel beam being on the roadway was that it had been improperly secured on a truck and had fallen from the truck onto the roadway. It noted that there was no adjacent construction site and no other explanation for the presence of the beam on the roadway.

To recover in these cases, the plaintiff must carry the burden of proof on two inferences. The threshold inference is the one discussed above, namely: that the debris came from a motor vehicle. The second inference is that the debris ended up in the road due to the motor vehicle operator’s failure to act reasonably. See Hanania at 687. This is stacking inferences.

Here’s the rule on stacking inferences:

To prove a prima facie case of negligence…, circumstantial evidence can be used “as effectively and as conclusively” as direct positive evidence, but if a party “depends upon the inferences to be drawn from circumstantial evidence as proof of one fact, it cannot construct a further inference upon the initial inference in order to establish a further fact unless it can be found that the original, basic inference was established to the exclusion of all other reasonable inferences.”

Davie Plaza, LLC v. Iordanoglu, 232 So.3d 441, 445 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (quoting Nielsen v. City of Sarasota, 117 So.2d 731, 733 (Fla. 1960)). “The purpose of this rule against stacking inferences is `to protect litigants from verdicts based on conjecture and speculation.'” Broward Exec. Builders, 192 So.3d at 537 (quoting Stanley v. Marceaux, 991 So.2d 938, 940 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)). “In a negligence action, if a plaintiff relies upon circumstantial evidence to establish a fact, fails to do so to the `exclusion of all other reasonable inferences,’ but then stacks further inferences upon it to establish causation, a directed verdict in favor of the defendant is warranted.” Id. One more thing: Notify the police and the uninsured motorist carrier of the incident immediately, preferably within 24 hours.

********************

Contact us at 305-758-4900 or by email (jgale@jeffgalelaw.com and kgale@jeffgalelaw.com) to learn your legal rights.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. is a South Florida based law firm committed to the judicial system and to representing and obtaining justice for individuals – the poor, the injured, the forgotten, the voiceless, the defenseless and the damned, and to protecting the rights of such people from corporate and government oppression. We do not represent government, corporations or large business interests.

While prompt resolution of your legal matter is our goal, our approach is fundamentally different. Our clients are “people” and not “cases” or “files.” We take the time to build a relationship with our clients, realizing that only through meaningful interaction can we best serve their needs. In this manner, we have been able to best help those requiring legal representation.

DISCLAIMER: This information provided by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. is for informational purposes only and is intended to be used as a non-legal guide prior to consultation with an attorney familiar with your specific legal situation. It should not be considered legal advice or counseling. No such legal advice or counseling is either expressly or impliedly intended. This information is not a substitute for the advice or counsel of an attorney. If you require legal advice, you should seek the services of an attorney.