In my opinion, the court got this wrong. Being a permissive user does not in and of itself create an insured under the policy unless the permissive user is a regular operator of the vehicle and although that may be the case, that is not stated in the article.
If the granddaughter is a regular operator of the vehicle, was premium being collected? And if not, isn’t rate evasion covered under insurance fraud in Florida?
Wayne, being a permissive use does not mean a regular operator. If I visit you for the weekend and ask to drive to the store to get milk and you let me, I would be a permissive user that does not reularly operate the vehicle. If she lived int he household or the car was regularly used by her then yes she would need to be on the policy but this doesn’t seem to be the case.
Wasn’t this a LIABILITY claim guys; i.e., Mom and Dad were alleging that their daughter was liable for their injuries. The only way they can present that claim to State Farm is if their daughter (the driver) qualifies as an “insured” under the policy. If you claim she is not an “insured” so as to try avoiding the exclusion, then she does not qualifiy for LIABILITY coverage and State Farm is not bound to provide either indemnity nor defense; i.e., it still does not pay the claim. Guess what? It makes daughter “uninsured” as in Mom and Dad turn to their own UM coverage and get their claim handled. Since this got all the way the the Fla Supremes, I’m guessing there’s a good chance they don’t have UM coverage. Maybe they don’t own a car? Maybe they do but they elected not to carry UM coverage on their own policy or maybe uninsured themselves? Regardless, the Fla Supremes got this coverage question right.
Wasn’t this a LIABILITY claim guys; i.e., Mom and Dad were alleging that their daughter was liable for their injuries. The only way they can present that claim to State Farm is if their daughter (the driver) qualifies as an “insured” under the policy. If you claim she is not an “insured” so as to try avoiding the exclusion, then she does not qualifiy for LIABILITY coverage and State Farm is not bound to provide either indemnity nor defense; i.e., it still does not pay the claim. Guess what? It makes daughter “uninsured” as in Mom and Dad turn to their own UM coverage and get their claim handled. Since this got all the way the the Fla Supremes, I’m guessing there’s a good chance they don’t have UM coverage. Maybe they don’t own a car? Maybe they do but they elected not to carry UM coverage on their own policy or maybe uninsured themselves? Regardless, for once the Fla Supremes got an insurance coverage question right.
actually i think they have it wrong… they gave permissive use for g-dau to use the veh, but she did not live w/grandmother… so if she lived w/parents and took them on a trip to the store, and parents don’t live w/the grandparent, then the exclusion is not valid… the exclusion is based on named insured having relatives living w/her… so it should have paid out as PIP clm…
I bet that the car was regularly driven by the grand daughter. That the grandmother had car under her name and that the Grand daughter was committing rate evasion fraud just like all the young drivers in south florida.1. None of them live with the parent or whoever the car is registered to.2. None of them are listed on anybodys policy they just drive without paying there rate then they want the insurance company to turn around and just cover the claim. Enough is Enough once insurance companies start denying claims based on rate evasion things will start getting better for our industry.
In my opinion, the court got this wrong. Being a permissive user does not in and of itself create an insured under the policy unless the permissive user is a regular operator of the vehicle and although that may be the case, that is not stated in the article.
If the granddaughter is a regular operator of the vehicle, was premium being collected? And if not, isn’t rate evasion covered under insurance fraud in Florida?
Wayne, being a permissive use does not mean a regular operator. If I visit you for the weekend and ask to drive to the store to get milk and you let me, I would be a permissive user that does not reularly operate the vehicle. If she lived int he household or the car was regularly used by her then yes she would need to be on the policy but this doesn’t seem to be the case.
Wasn’t this a LIABILITY claim guys; i.e., Mom and Dad were alleging that their daughter was liable for their injuries. The only way they can present that claim to State Farm is if their daughter (the driver) qualifies as an “insured” under the policy. If you claim she is not an “insured” so as to try avoiding the exclusion, then she does not qualifiy for LIABILITY coverage and State Farm is not bound to provide either indemnity nor defense; i.e., it still does not pay the claim. Guess what? It makes daughter “uninsured” as in Mom and Dad turn to their own UM coverage and get their claim handled. Since this got all the way the the Fla Supremes, I’m guessing there’s a good chance they don’t have UM coverage. Maybe they don’t own a car? Maybe they do but they elected not to carry UM coverage on their own policy or maybe uninsured themselves? Regardless, the Fla Supremes got this coverage question right.
Wasn’t this a LIABILITY claim guys; i.e., Mom and Dad were alleging that their daughter was liable for their injuries. The only way they can present that claim to State Farm is if their daughter (the driver) qualifies as an “insured” under the policy. If you claim she is not an “insured” so as to try avoiding the exclusion, then she does not qualifiy for LIABILITY coverage and State Farm is not bound to provide either indemnity nor defense; i.e., it still does not pay the claim. Guess what? It makes daughter “uninsured” as in Mom and Dad turn to their own UM coverage and get their claim handled. Since this got all the way the the Fla Supremes, I’m guessing there’s a good chance they don’t have UM coverage. Maybe they don’t own a car? Maybe they do but they elected not to carry UM coverage on their own policy or maybe uninsured themselves? Regardless, for once the Fla Supremes got an insurance coverage question right.
actually i think they have it wrong… they gave permissive use for g-dau to use the veh, but she did not live w/grandmother… so if she lived w/parents and took them on a trip to the store, and parents don’t live w/the grandparent, then the exclusion is not valid… the exclusion is based on named insured having relatives living w/her… so it should have paid out as PIP clm…
I bet that the car was regularly driven by the grand daughter. That the grandmother had car under her name and that the Grand daughter was committing rate evasion fraud just like all the young drivers in south florida.1. None of them live with the parent or whoever the car is registered to.2. None of them are listed on anybodys policy they just drive without paying there rate then they want the insurance company to turn around and just cover the claim. Enough is Enough once insurance companies start denying claims based on rate evasion things will start getting better for our industry.
The case involves “Liability – Coverage A” per the opinion which can be read at:
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2011/sc10-116.pdf