Case Title: Allstate Insurance Company v. Clendening

Citation: 289 So. 2d 704

Docket Number: 

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 1974-01-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
289 So. 2d 704 (1974)
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner,
v.
James S. CLENDENING et al., Respondents.
No. 43677.

Supreme Court of Florida.
January 23, 1974.
Rehearing Denied March 7, 1974.
*705 Raymond Ehrlich and Marion R. Shepard, of Mathews, Osborne, Ehrlich, McNatt, Gobelman & Cobb, Jacksonville, for petitioner.
David R. Lewis, of Blalock, Holbrook, Lewis, Paul & Isaac, Jacksonville, for respondents.
ROBERTS, Justice.
This cause is before us on certiorari granted to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District in Allstate Insurance Company v. Clendening, et al., reported at 273 So. 2d 800 (Fla.App. 1973), which purportedly conflicts with The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company v. Enright, 258 So. 2d 472 (Fla.App. 1972).
On October 6, 1970, respondent-son, who was a defendant and counter-plaintiff below, while serving in the Navy at Jacksonville, was involved in an accident with an uninsured motorist which resulted in serious and permanent injury. James Clendening at the time of the accident was the minor son of Robert Clendening, defendant and counter-plaintiff below, and was a resident of his father's household. Stonewall Insurance Company, plaintiff-below, had a policy of automobile liability insurance issued in Florida in effect on October 6, 1970, insuring James Clendening, the son, for injuries and losses caused by the negligence of an uninsured driver in the maximum sum of $10,000. Respondent father, a resident of Tennessee, also had an insurance policy in effect on the date of the accident issued by petitioner, Allstate Insurance Company, plaintiff below, in Tennessee, insuring him for losses or damages sustained by him or relative resident in his household, caused by the negligence of uninsured drivers in the maximum sum of $10,000. Relative to uninsured motorist coverage, the Allstate policy provided, inter alia:
The Allstate policy contained, additionally, a $2,000 maximum medical expenses coverage sustained by Robert Clendening, or relatives resident in his household as a result of accident. Both policies provided that any disputes were to be settled by the process of arbitration through the American Arbitration Association. James Clendening filed a demand for arbitration upon Allstate Insurance Company and Stonewall Insurance Company. Both insurance companies brought an action for declaratory and injunctive relief in Florida. In their complaint, the insurance companies alleged, inter alia, that notwithstanding the offer of Stonewall Insurance Company to pay the full sum of $10,000 in settlement of its liability under its policy to all claimants thereto, which offer is continuing, and notwithstanding the fact that Allstate Insurance Company did on several occasions offer to pay the sum of $10,000.00 in full settlement of its liability to all claimants, which offer is now withdrawn and replaced by an offer to pay the sum of $2,000.00, under Coverage C1, Automobile Medical Payments Insurance, to such person or persons as may be entitled thereto, such offers were refused. Allstate alleged that there was and is other insurance applicable to the injury to James Clendening under the policy issued by Stonewall Insurance Company and that by virtue of the following condition of the endorsement in the Allstate Insurance policy executed in Tennessee, the liability of Allstate Insurance Company for uninsured motorist coverage does not in any event exceed the sum of $10,000.00 and such liability is reduced by the sum of $2,000.00 payable under automobile medical payments insurance, and such liability is further reduced by the amount of uninsured motorist coverage available under the Stonewall policy, so that in any event, the liability of Allstate to the claimants does not exceed the sum of $2,000.00. The aforementioned condition contained in the Allstate policy provides:
The policy issued by Allstate in Tennessee was required to include uninsured motorist coverage by the provisions of § 56-1148, Tennessee Code Annotated, in the amount set out in § 59-1206, T.C.A.:
Allstate urged that Tennessee law should apply in determining the validity of the aforestated condition of the Allstate policy since the statutes of Tennessee unlike Florida law provide that so long as an injured person has available to him insurance coverage with limits not less than $10,000.00 required for proof of financial responsibility (T.C.A. § 59-1206) such statute shall not be construed to require insurance under one or more policies in excess of that amount. Section 56-1152, T.C.A., provides:
An attempt was made to join the United States as a party to the suit, but it objected and was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
To said complaint for declaratory relief, respondent-father counterclaimed demanding judgment against Stonewall in the sum of $10,000.00 and against Allstate for $12,000.00, and respondent-son counterclaimed and demanded judgment against each insurer in the sum of $10,000.00 each. Respondent, James Clendening, then filed a motion for summary judgment to declare that each of the insurance companies has an independent liability limit of $10,000.00 with respect to his claim. Respondent, Robert Clendening, separately moved for partial summary judgment against Stonewall and Allstate for a declaration that Stonewall has a limit of $10,000.00 under its uninsured motorist coverage for Robert Clendening and that Allstate has a $10,000.00 limit under its uninsured motorist coverage, and an additional limit of $2,000.00 under its medical pay coverage for Robert Clendening. The trial court granted the motions for partial summary judgment. In its order granting partial summary judgment, the trial court faced with a conflicts of law question, to-wit: whether Tennessee law or Florida law should apply, in determining the validity of the "other insurance" or "excess coverage" clause contained in the Allstate Insurance policy, refused to apply the law of Tennessee, concluding that the better rule of law was that of Florida and that Florida has an interest in those persons insured in Florida who may become a burden to the state requiring treatment, hospitalization and doctor's treatment. Petition for rehearing was filed by Allstate wherein it alleged, inter alia, that the court failed to give full faith to acts of a foreign state and that the court, by its order, purports to construe the Florida Statute to change rights and obligations created in and valid by the law of a foreign state and thus constitutes a denial of due process. This petition was denied.
However, subsequent to the order granting partial summary judgment, at the trial, respondent-father dropped his claim for uninsured motorist damages against Stonewall. Respondent-son dropped his claim for damages against Allstate, and claim for medical claims was shifted from father to son. Stonewall Insurance Company agreed and settled the claim of respondents by Stonewall paying the sum of $10,000.00 *708 payable to respondent son. Although finding that the United States Navy had furnished medical services in excess of $25,000.00, the trial judge citing Paradis v. Thomas, Fla.App., 150 So. 2d 457, and Parker v. Wideman, 5th Cir., 380 F.2d 433, applying the collateral source rule, found that the respondents were not barred from recovery merely because they suffered no net medical loss from the injuries, and awarded final judgment for respondent-father against Allstate in the amount of $10,000.00 provided that he provides Allstate with a release from the United States releasing Allstate for payment of medical services provided to respondent-son and awarded respondent-son $2,000.00 medical coverage for medical expenses provided he supplies Allstate with a waiver or release from the United States Navy. "Final judgment and order of execution" was thereafter rendered by the trial court having been advised that James Clendening and Robert Clendening had tendered to Allstate releases from the Navy Department.
Upon appeal of the final judgment, the First District Court of Appeal in a very brief per curiam opinion stated that appellant failed to demonstrate reversible error and affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
Because of apparent conflict with Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. v. Enright, 258 So. 2d 472 (Fla.App.3rd, 1972), we granted certiorari. In the Enright case, a New York resident was driving the car of another New York resident in Dade County. Both the driver and owner of the car were insured by separate New York insurance policies for injury caused by an uninsured motorist. As a result of an accident with an uninsured motorist, the driver brought suit in Florida to recover under his own policy. He had already recovered the $10,000.00 limit under the policy of the owner of the car. His policy contained a provision similar to that contained in the policy of the father in this case which provision was valid under the law of New York. The trial court found that the law of New York was contrary to the public policy of Florida and granted recovery to the driver. Initially the DCA-3 set out the public policy of Florida relative to uninsured motorist coverage:
The Third District in Enright reversed the judgment of the trial judge and concluded that the trial judge had improperly extended statutory expression of public policy regulating insurance policies issued in Florida to the point that he had overruled the general law of contracts, and that "The expressions of the legislature in the statute clearly apply only to contracts issued in the State of Florida. In both Sellers and Travelers the policy against limiting uninsured motorist coverage was applied to policies issued to Florida residents."
By determining that no reversible error had been demonstrated and in affirming the final judgment of the trial court, the District Court of Appeal, First District did not necessarily agree with the previous interlocutory order of the trial judge wherein the trial judge determined that Florida law should apply in determining the validity vel non of the excess coverage provision of the Allstate policy issued in Tennessee. It was after the entry of partial summary judgment that respondent-father dropped his claim against Stonewall and respondent-son dropped his claim for damages against Allstate, thus negating the conflicts of law question. The final outcome of the cause was that Stonewall paid its policy owner, James, the limit of his uninsured motorist coverage, $10,000.00, under his own policy, to cover his personal claim and any Navy subrogation or independent claim arising from his; James, as a relative of the named insured, was awarded the limit of the medical pay coverage of the Allstate policy, $2,000.00; and Allstate was found liable to its policy owner, Robert, for the limit of his uninsured motorist coverage, $10,000.00, under his own policy, to cover his derivative claim from his son's injury and any Navy subrogation or independent claim arising from his.
We agree with respondents that although the trial court, in granting the partial summary judgments for respondents, made a determination that, at that stage of the case, it would apply the public policy of the law of Florida in declaring the Tennessee Allstate policy "exceptions" unenforceable, the ultimate judgment of the trial court is not contingent upon the choice of Florida law over Tennessee law.
After oral argument and upon further consideration of the matter, we have determined that the finding by the District Court in the instant cause that no reversible error had been demonstrated does not conflict with the Aetna Casualty and Surety Company v. Enright, supra. Since no direct conflict exists as required by Article V, Section 3(b) (3), Florida Constitution (1973), F.S.A., certiorari herein was improvidently granted.
By way of caveat we comment that Tennessee law is applicable in determining the validity vel non of the excess insurance clause under the particular facts of this case. The insured was a resident of Tennessee, insured by a policy executed in Tennessee under Tennessee laws. See Aetna Casualty and Surety Company v. Enright, supra.
For the aforegoing reasons, the petition for writ of certiorari must be and is hereby discharged.
It is so ordered.
CARLTON, C.J., and ERVIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
BOYD, J., dissents.