Case Name: Raymond KIERTEKLES, Appellant, v. The MANCHESTER INSURANCE & INDEMNITY COMPANY, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1975-12-09
Citations: 323 So. 2d 317
Docket Number: No. 75-275
Parties: Raymond KIERTEKLES, Appellant, v. The MANCHESTER INSURANCE & INDEMNITY COMPANY, Appellee.
Judges: Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HAVERFIELD, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 323
Pages: 317–318

Head Matter:
Raymond KIERTEKLES, Appellant, v. The MANCHESTER INSURANCE & INDEMNITY COMPANY, Appellee.
No. 75-275.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Dec. 9, 1975.
Bernstein & Robrish, Coconut Grove, for appellant.
Vernis & Bowling and Ronald J. Raf-fony, Coconut Grove, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff, Raymond Kiertekles, appeals the dismissal of his complaint by the trial court upon motion of defendant Manchester Insurance & Indemnity Company. He argues that he was the driver of a rental car in which his co-adventurer was a passenger and that he was entitled to uninsured motorist benefits under a personal policy of insurance owned by the passenger. The trial court held that the contract of insurance of the passenger did not contain uninsured motorist coverage for the benefit of plaintiff. The policy of insurance on which Kiertekles sought recovery was independent and separate from the rental agreement.
We hold that the trial court correctly determined that uninsured motorist coverage was not included for Kiertekles under the terms of the policy or the statute providing for uninsured motorist coverage. See Fla. Stat. § 627.727; Mullis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., Fla.1971, 252 So.2d 229; cf. Cavalier Insurance Corporation v. Bailey, Fla.App.1974, 292 So.2d 67.
Affirmed.