Case Name: ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Richard PIERCE, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1992-04-17
Citations: 597 So. 2d 388
Docket Number: No. 91-1160
Parties: ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Richard PIERCE, Appellee.
Judges: DAUKSCH, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 597
Pages: 388–391

Head Matter:
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Richard PIERCE, Appellee.
No. 91-1160.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
April 17, 1992.
F. Bradley Hassell of Eubank, Hassell, Miles & Lewis, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Allan L. Ziffra of John D. Rue, P.A., Port Orange, for appellee.

Opinion:
DIAMANTIS, Judge.
Allstate Insurance Company appeals the final judgment of the trial court entered in this declaratory judgment action instituted by appellee Richard Pierce. The trial court held that, based upon a finding of an estop-pel, Allstate must provide uninsured motorist coverage to Pierce for an automobile accident. We hold that the evidence does not support a finding of estoppel and, therefore, we are constrained to reverse the final judgment.
Pierce's mother, Brenda, who lives in Ohio, has automobile insurance coverage with Allstate. Her insurance agent is her brother-in-law, Howard Behm. The insurance policy names Brenda as the primary insured and states that two cars are covered by the policy, a 1978 Pontiac and a 1985 Mustang. The Mustang is owned and operated by Pierce. The amount of the premium paid by Brenda is calculated by includ ing into consideration the fact that her son operates the 1985 Mustang. The insurance agent, Behm, explained that the policy does not cover Pierce as a named insured but that the policy provides Pierce with uninsured motorist coverage so long as he qualifies as a "resident relative".
The policy specifically provides that, among other things, uninsured motorist coverage will be provided to "insured persons". The policy defines insured persons as "you and any resident relative". The term "you" refers to Brenda, the named insured. The term "resident relative" means any "person who physically resides in your household with the intention of continuing residence there. Your unmarried dependent children, while temporarily away from home will be considered residents if they intend to resume residence in your household."
Pierce enlisted in the armed service after high school and served from November of 1983 through November of 1987. In February of 1987 Pierce married. At that time he did not live with his mother in Ohio, but instead, lived in North Carolina. Upon his discharge in November of 1987 Pierce and his wife returned to Ohio for a short period and stayed with his mother. One month later, in December of 1987, Pierce and his wife moved to Florida because he had enrolled as a student at Embry Riddle University and, in January of 1988, Pierce was involved in an automobile accident in Florida while driving his wife's car.
Pierce filed suit for declaratory relief asserting a claim for uninsured motorist coverage under the terms of his mother's Allstate policy. As we noted, such coverage would apply only if Pierce qualifies as a "resident relative". The evidence clearly establishes that Pierce does not qualify as a resident relative because at the time of the accident he did not physically reside in his mother's household nor was he an unmarried dependent temporarily away from home. Pierce contends, however, that due to representations made by Allstate's insurance agent (Howard Behm) to his mother (Brenda) Allstate is estopped from denying that Pierce is a resident relative. The trial court concluded that Pierce's contention was correct. This conclusion constitutes error.
An estoppel can only be invoked against an insurer when its conduct has been such as to induce actions in reliance upon it. Dean v. Central Mutual Insurance Company, 381 So.2d 737, 738 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Burns v. Consolidated American Insurance Company, 359 So.2d 1203, 1207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Travelers Indemnity Company of Rhode Island v. Mirlenbrink, 345 So.2d 417, 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company v. Eakins, 337 So.2d 418, 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976).
The evidence establishes that in December of 1987, upon becoming aware that Pierce had relocated to Florida, Behm informed Brenda that Pierce would be required to obtain his own car insurance. Behm represented to Brenda that coverage for Pierce would not automatically end on that day but would continue for a "reasonable amount of time". However, there is no testimony in the record indicating that Brenda relayed this information to Pierce prior to the automobile accident. Additionally, Behm never made any representations to Pierce concerning the need to acquire coverage in Florida. In fact, Pierce had not spoken with Behm about insurance coverage since October of 1986. Therefore, we hold that there is no basis to support the trial court's finding that Pierce detrimentally relied upon any representation made to him by Behm or that Pierce detrimentally changed his position based upon any representation concerning coverage. Consequently, we hold that the trial court erred in concluding that Pierce proved his claim for estoppel. See Professional Underwriters Insurance Company v. Freytes & Sons Corporation, Inc., 565 So.2d 900, 902-903 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).
Also, even assuming that a representation was made by Behm to Brenda, which could conceivably result in uninsured motorist coverage for Pierce, this evidence alone is insufficient to establish an estoppel because there is no evidence that, as a result of this representation, Brenda made a detrimental change in her position. In fact, upon receiving this information, Brenda did nothing.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's judgment entered in this matter and direct that the trial court enter final judgment for Allstate.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DAUKSCH, J., concurs.
W. SHARP, J., dissents with opinion.