Case Name: Susan BEHRMANN, Appellant, v. INDUSTRIAL FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation and Florida No-Fault Insurance Agency, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1979-08-07
Citations: 374 So. 2d 568
Docket Number: No. 78-1867
Parties: Susan BEHRMANN, Appellant, v. INDUSTRIAL FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation and Florida No-Fault Insurance Agency, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Appellees.
Judges: Before HENDRY, HUBBART and SCHWARTZ, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 374
Pages: 568–569

Head Matter:
Susan BEHRMANN, Appellant, v. INDUSTRIAL FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation and Florida No-Fault Insurance Agency, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Appellees.
No. 78-1867.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Aug. 7, 1979.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 24, 1979.
Marvin H. Gillman, Miami, for appellant.
Goodhart & Rosner, Greene & Cooper and Sharon L. Wolfe, Miami, for appellees.
Before HENDRY, HUBBART and SCHWARTZ, JJ.

Opinion:
HUBBART, Judge.
This is an appeal and cross appeal from a final judgment in a breach of contract action denying the plaintiff insured Susan Behrman uninsured motorist benefits from its insurance carrier, the defendant Industrial Fire & Casualty Company. We affirm.
The plaintiff was a passenger in an automobile driven by an insured motorist who collided with another automobile driven by an uninsured motorist. The plaintiff had uninsured motorist coverage with the defendant carrier which was equal to the liability insurance limits of the insured motorist, and, for that reason alone, the plaintiff is not entitled to collect uninsured motorist benefits from the defendant carrier on this accident. Dewberry v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co., 363 So.2d 1077, 1080-81 (Fla.1978); Travelers Insurance Co. v. Wilson, 371 So.2d 145 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Ilmonen, 360 So.2d 1271 (Fla.3d DCA 1978); § 627.727(1), Fla.Stat. (1977). This result is not changed by the fact that the plaintiff is also an insured for the same limits under the uninsured motorist provision of the insured motorist's policy, as, under identical circumstances, it has been held that the plaintiff cannot stack such uninsured motorist coverages. Yaden v. Hanover Insurance Co., 375 So.2d 5 (Fla.4th DCA 1979).
It is unnecessary to consider the reasons stated in the final judgment for denying uninsured motorist coverage herein as it is clear that the trial court, in any event, reached the right result. In re Estate of Yohn, 238 So.2d 290, 295 (Fla.1970). It is also unnecessary to reach the merits of the cross appeal in view of our disposition of the main appeal.
Affirmed.