Case Name: Gina MARCHESE, individually, and as guardian of the minor plaintiff, Likrish Marchese, Appellant, v. LITITZ MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1988-05-17
Citations: 524 So. 2d 1155
Docket Number: No. 87-1871
Parties: Gina MARCHESE, individually, and as guardian of the minor plaintiff, Likrish Marchese, Appellant, v. LITITZ MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
Judges: Before HENDRY, HUBBART and BASKIN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 524
Pages: 1155–1155

Head Matter:
Gina MARCHESE, individually, and as guardian of the minor plaintiff, Likrish Marchese, Appellant, v. LITITZ MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
No. 87-1871.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
May 17, 1988.
Leesfield & Blackburn and Ibis J. Hillen-camp, Miami, for appellant.
James C. Blecke, Miami, and Susan S. Lerner, for appellee.
Before HENDRY, HUBBART and BASKIN, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The final declaratory decree under review is affirmed upon a holding that the accident sued upon is not covered by the subject homeowner's insurance policy which, without dispute, does not cover accidents involving motor vehicles owned by the insured when the accident occurs off the insured's "resident premises." We reach this result because (a) it was conceded below that the Honda ATC involved in the subject accident was owned by the insured Brandi Richardson, there being no dispute that it was a gift from her nonin-sured, nonresident father; (b) the accident sued upon in the instant case occurred on an empty lot, not owned by the insured, across the street from the insured's home, and, therefore, did not occur on the insured's "resident premises" as defined by the policy inter alia: "any premises used by you in connection with [insured's home]"; and (c) a contrary result would mean, as noted by the trial court, that any non-owned empty lot regularly used by an insured to ride her motor vehicle, including lots located many blocks from the insured's home, would be considered "resident premises" under the policy — clearly an absurd interpretation. See, e.g., James v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., 66 So.2d 62 (Fla.1953); Fernandez v. United States Fidelity & Guarantee Co., 308 So.2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).
Affirmed.