Opinion ID: 1945481
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: By addition of this endorsement to your policy, the following replaces paragraph J. of DEFINITIONS [defining covered auto]:

Text: J. Your Covered Auto is changed as follows: 1. Any auto which has been designated with the following tag letters: L  Leased vehicles E  Executive Vehicles S  Sales Vehicles in the records of Ford Motor Company's vehicle administration system. (3) The uninsured motorist coverage provision states: Insured as used in this Part means: 1. You or any family member. 2. Any other person occupying your covered auto. (4) Endorsement PP FO RD 01, added exclusions which include: 2. This policy, however, shall provide contingent loss and excess auto liability coverages for autos included in the following programs: a. Red Carpet Lease . . . . but only as respects the liability of Named Insured. No coverage is provided to lessees, agents, or permissive users. In the federal district court, the appellants and Michigan Mutual both sought summary final judgment with regard to the issue of whether the appellants were provided coverage and entitled to UM/ UIM benefits under the policy at issue. The district court determined that the claimants were entitled to a summary judgment on the issue of coverage under the terms of the insurance contract based upon the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal in Perez v. Michigan Mutual Insurance Co., 723 So.2d 849 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), which was predicated upon the determination that persons in the position of these claimants are named insureds under this contract. However, notwithstanding the determination of the issue of coverage and the definition of named insured under the contract as written, the district court conducted further proceedings and a bench trial to consider and determine whether the insurance policy should otherwise be reformed because it did not accurately reflect the intent of the contracting parties. At the conclusion of this subsequent proceeding, the district court found that Ford and Michigan Mutual had not intended to provide coverage to retail lessees under the policy. Therefore, the district court reformed the definition of named insured under the insurance contract to exclude any coverage for retail lessees. As a result of this reformation, the district court entered final judgment for Michigan Mutual, reasoning that [o]nce the contract has been reformed, no motor vehicle liability policy was issued with respect to retail lessees and, therefore, the district court concluded that section 627.727 of the Florida Statutes and the requirements contained therein for named insureds had no application with respect to these claimants. Appellants sought review of this judgment in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and this certified question followed.