Case Name: Morgan PEARCY and Panco Electrical Contractors, Inc., Appellants, v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1983-04-12
Citations: 429 So. 2d 1298
Docket Number: No. 82-1888
Parties: Morgan PEARCY and Panco Electrical Contractors, Inc., Appellants, v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, Appellee.
Judges: Before BARKDULL, DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 429
Pages: 1298–1299

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.