Title: Boyd v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
Citation: 256 So. 2d 1
Docket Number: 41117
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: November 24, 1971

256 So. 2d 1 (1971)
Bess C. BOYD, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES FIDELITY &amp; GUARANTY COMPANY, Appellee.
No. 41117.

Supreme Court of Florida.
November 24, 1971.
Rehearing Denied January 17, 1972.
*2 Samuel Z. Goldman of Hastings, Elias &amp; Goldman, Miami, for appellant.
Carey, Dwyer, Austin, Cole &amp; Selwood, P.A., Miami, for appellee.
McCAIN, Justice.
Pursuant to Rule 4.61, F.A.R., 32 F.S.A., the instant case is presented to us on certificate from the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 443 F.2d 848 (1971), in an appeal from a decision of the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, reported at 313 F. Supp. 579 (1970), denying insurance coverage in a garnishment proceeding against respondent.
The facts in the case are stipulated. Appellant Boyd sustained personal injuries when struck by an automobile owned by appellee Amelia Bowman (hereinafter referred to as "Wife") and operated by her husband, Charles Bowman ("Husband"). Wife and Husband each owned their own cars and carried separate insurance policies. At the time of the accident, both cars owned by the Bowmans were operable, but the couple had decided to drive wife's car to Florida for a vacation.
Wife's insurer defended Husband and Wife in the resulting lawsuit in the Dade County Circuit Court. Husband's insurer, appellee U.S.F. &amp; G., denied coverage and liability and did not participate in the action. The suit was settled by entry of final judgment in favor of Boyd against Husband and Wife in the amount of $50,000. Wife's insurer paid $10,000 (the extent of its policy limits) towards satisfaction of the judgment. Husband and Wife personally paid Boyd $1,500. This left a partially unsatisfied judgment in the amount of $38,500.
Thereupon, Boyd brought garnishment proceedings in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida against U.S.F. &amp; G. for the remaining portion of the judgment. That Court concluded that Boyd's injuries were not covered by Husband's policy. Boyd appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, and the problem has been certified here.
In pertinent part, Husband's insurance policy with U.S.F. &amp; G. provides:
The issue in the case, as framed by the certifying court, is as follows:
We turn first to a consideration of the insurance contract itself. It is apparent from a reading of the quoted portions of the policy that in order for liability coverage to obtain, the accident must have arisen "out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the owned automobile or any non-owned automobile * * *" (Emphasis added)
An "owned automobile" is defined under Part I of the policy as an "automobile described in this policy for which a specific premium charge indicates that coverage is afforded." The only automobile meeting these criteria is Husband's automobile, which is described in the policy and on which premiums were paid. Thus, Wife's automobile cannot be an "owned automobile" under Husband's policy.
*4 Is Wife's car a "non-owned automobile"? We think not. Part I of the policy provides that the term "non-owned automobile" means "an automobile or trailer, not owned by or furnished for the regular use of either the Named Insured or any relative, other than a temporary substitute automobile." "Named Insured" is defined for purposes of Part I as "the individual named in Item 1 of the declarations [Husband] and also includes his spouse, if a resident of the same household; "[Wife was a resident of the same household]. Therefore, Wife as well as Husband is a Named Insured under the policy. Since the automobile in question was owned at the time of the accident by a Named Insured, it cannot qualify as a non-owned automobile within the policy definition. Nor can Wife's car qualify as a temporary substitute automobile since Husband's car was in good working order at all times during the period the couple was using Wife's car. Accordingly, the contract does not provide Husband liability coverage in the stipulated fact situation. Moreover, because the contract is unambiguous, it does not require construction as such and the rule that insurance contracts shall be strictly construed against the insurer cannot and does not apply. See for example, Coleman v. Atlantic National Insurance Company, 166 So. 2d 620 (Fla.App.3rd, 1964) and Pennsylvania Threshermen &amp; Farmers' Mutual Casualty Insurance Company v. Traister, 173 So. 2d 153 (Fla.App.2d, 1965).
The position we take here is not a novel one. Although the question is one of first impression in Florida, the same issue has been considered in Farber v. Great American Insurance Company, 406 F.2d 1228 (7 Cir.1969). In that case, the specifically named insured under a policy virtually identical in all material respects to that in the case at bar, was involved in an accident while operating a vehicle furnished for the regular use of his spouse, a resident of the household. The Court of Appeals concluded that the named insured husband was not covered under the policy while driving his wife's automobile. Inter alia, the Court said:
*5 The rationale behind inclusion of a "drive other cars" or "non-owned automobile" provision in an automobile insurance policy is summed up succinctly in Couch on Insurance:
Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the policy excludes liability in the stipulated fact situation and the certified question is so answered.
ROBERTS, C.J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur.