Case Name: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Joan PALACINO, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1990-06-13
Citations: 562 So. 2d 837
Docket Number: No. 87-3279
Parties: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Joan PALACINO, Appellee.
Judges: DOWNEY, ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN, GUNTHER and GARRETT, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 562
Pages: 837–839

Head Matter:
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Joan PALACINO, Appellee.
No. 87-3279.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
June 13, 1990.
James K. Clark of Barnett, Clark & Barnard, Miami, for appellant.
Michael J. Kaplan of Spellacy & McPann, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

Opinion:
WARNER, Judge.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company appeals from a summary final judgment finding that uninsured motorist coverage existed for the benefit of appellee, Joan Palacino, for injuries she sustained in a one-car accident. Palacino was riding as a passenger in an automobile owned by her and insured by State Farm. A friend of Palacino was operating the vehicle at the time of the accident. In an action for declaratory judgment, the trial court found in favor of Palacino on the authority of Jernigan v. Progressive American Insurance Company, 501 So.2d 748 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 513 So.2d 1062 (Fla.1987). We, however, reverse on the basis of Reid v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 352 So.2d 1172 (Fla.1978) and Barlow v. Auto Owner's Insurance Co., 358 So.2d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).
Jernigan, which is factually indistinguishable from the present case, relied on Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boynton, 486 So.2d 552 (Fla.1986), in which the supreme court held that the test for determining whether a vehicle is insured for purposes of uninsured motorist coverage is not whether the owner or operator of the vehicle has a liability policy but whether insurance is available to the injured plaintiff. Under the policy in Jernigan there was liability coverage afforded on the vehicle even though it did not cover Jernigan for the subject accident. The Fifth District held that the vehicle was uninsured under the Boynton standard. The court then determined that Reid v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 352 So.2d 1172 (Fla.1977), which stands for the often cited proposition that a vehicle cannot be both insured and uninsured on the same policy, was applicable only in cases involving policies containing a family exclusion. However, the supreme court in Boynton distinguished Reid as follows:
Allstate, citing Reid v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 352 So.2d 1172 (Fla.1977), asserts in its brief that a valid exclusion in a liability policy does not make a vehicle uninsured for uninsured motorist purposes. In Reid, we held that a vehicle cannot be both an insured and uninsured vehicle under the same policy. The present case is distinguishable because it involves separate policies. Reid is inapplicable.
Boynton, 486 So.2d at 555, n. 5. Thus, the principle enunciated in Boynton is applicable where there are two separate policies, not where exclusions and coverage are being considered under the same policy, as is the case here.
Under identical facts in Barlow, 358 So.2d 1128, this court held no uninsured motorist coverage was available, citing Reid as authority. Until the supreme court clarifies whether Allstate v. Boynton has overruled Reid under these circumstances, we rely on our own precedent and Reid. In Brixius v. Allstate Ins. Co., 549 So.2d 1191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) the Second District has come to the same conclusion as we do here. As that court did, we too certify conflict with Jernigan.
Reversed and remanded.
DOWNEY, ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN, GUNTHER and GARRETT, JJ., concur.
HERSEY, C.J., concurs specially with opinion.
STONE, J., dissents with opinion in which LETTS, DELL, WALDEN and POLEN, JJ., concur.