Case ID: so2d_429/html/1298-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "FERGUSON, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Morgan PEARCY and Panco Electrical Contractors, Inc., Appellants, v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, Appellee.
    No. 82-1888.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    April 12, 1983.
    Rehearing Denied May 9, 1983.
    Highsmith & Strauss and Philip E. Glat-zer, Miami, for appellants.
    Joseph A. McGowan, Miami, for appellee.
    Before BARKDULL, DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.
   FERGUSON, Judge.

This appeal is brought by the insured corporation and its vice-president, the father of an employee fatally injured in an automobile collision, from an order dismissing a complaint by which appellants sought to obtain benefits under the corporation’s uninsured motorist policy.

We hold that where an uninsured motorist policy issued to a corporation, in standard form language, includes as an insured any “family member, related to [named insured] by blood, marriage or adoption who is a resident in [named insured’s] household,” the language is a nullity, as the corporation can have no such relative. Neither does the listing of an employee as an operator of the corporation’s vehicle, on a policy of insurance issued to the corporation, make that employee a named insured. See Whitten v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., 410 So.2d 501 (Fla.1982); U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Williams, 375 So.2d 328 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), cert. denied, 386 So.2d 642 (Fla.1980).

Thus, where employee, son of the corporate officer, was injured while operating a noncovered, uninsured automobile owned by a friend, on a social outing, although he was a named operator of the corporation’s vehicles on an uninsured motorist policy issued to the corporation, there was no coverage.

The order dismissing the second amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action is AFFIRMED.