Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantliability
plaintiffdefendantliabilityappeal

Related Cases

In re Wells Fargo Securities Litigation, Not Reported in F.Supp., 1991 WL 353393, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,830
View Case »
South Carolina Nat. Bank v. Stone, 139 F.R.D. 325, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,228
View Case »
Hizey v. Carpenter, 119 Wash.2d 251, 830 P.2d 646, 60 USLW 2765
View Case »
Purdy v. Pacific Automobile Ins. Co., 157 Cal.App.3d 59, 203 Cal.Rptr. 524
View Case »
United States v. Giglio, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2023 WL 4918332
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Perry, 361 So.2d 594

Facts

The plaintiffs, widows and administratrices of Kenneth Perry and Roy David Gulley, brought action against the employer's general liability insurer after their decedents were killed in an accident while riding in a vehicle owned and driven by fellow employee Jerry Ivey. The accident occurred when Ivey's vehicle was struck by another car while they were returning from rounding up loose cattle for their employer. At the time of the accident, Ivey's vehicle was not covered under the employer's insurance policy, and the plaintiffs claimed benefits under the uninsured motorist provisions of that policy, which were denied by the insurer.

The plaintiffs are the widows and administratrices of the estates of Kenneth Perry and Roy David Gulley. Their decedents were killed while passengers in an automobile owned and driven by Jerry Ivey.

Issue

Whether the deceased employees were 'persons insured' under the provisions of the defendant's policy, thus entitled to claim benefits of uninsured motorist coverage.

The primary issue presented by the appeal is whether decedents were 'persons insured' under the provisions of defendant's policy so that they are entitled to claim the benefits of uninsured motorist coverage.

Rule

The uninsured motorist coverage defines 'persons insured' as the named insured, designated insureds, and any other person while occupying an insured highway vehicle. The policy specifies that an 'insured highway vehicle' is any automobile owned by the named insured.

The uninsured motorist coverage provides that 'persons insured' are '(a) the named insured and any designated insured and, while residents of the same household, the spouse of relatives of either; (b) any other person while occupying an insured highway vehicle; . . .'

Analysis

The court analyzed the definitions within the insurance policy and determined that the deceased were not insured under the policy's terms. The vehicle they occupied was not owned by the named insured, and while Ivey had permission to use his vehicle for work purposes, it did not meet the policy's definition of a hired automobile. The court concluded that the deceased were neither occupants of an insured vehicle nor persons insured under the liability provisions of the policy.

It is the opinion of this court that the evidence is without material conflict that the deceased were neither occupants of an insured automobile nor were they persons insured under the liability provisions of the policy.

Conclusion

The court reversed the lower court's judgment, concluding that the evidence did not support the plaintiffs' claims for uninsured motorist benefits as the deceased were not insured under the policy.

We reverse and remand.

Who won?

The defendant, USF&G, prevailed in the case because the court found that the deceased employees did not qualify as insured persons under the terms of the insurance policy.

The court's opinion concluded that reasonable minds could only conclude that the deceased were not insured under the plain terms of the policy.

You must be