Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boynton
11 Fla. L. Weekly 97, 486 So.2d 552 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An insured is not 'legally entitled to recover' from a tortfeasor under an uninsured motorist (UM) policy if the tortfeasor has a substantive legal defense, such as immunity from suit under the Workers' Compensation Law.
Facts:
- Richard Boynton was employed as an auto mechanic for Sears, Roebuck & Company.
- While on the job, Boynton was struck and injured by a car being worked on by his co-employee, James Luke.
- The vehicle was leased to Xerox Corporation and had been brought to the Sears Auto Center for repairs.
- Luke's personal automobile liability insurance policy contained an exclusion for injuries that occurred during the pursuit of a business.
- Boynton had an uninsured motorist (UM) policy with Allstate Insurance Company.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard Boynton sued Sears, Xerox, and their insurers in a Florida trial court.
- Boynton voluntarily dismissed his suit against his employer, Sears, due to workers' compensation immunity.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Xerox and its insurer.
- Boynton then amended his complaint to seek recovery from his own insurer, Allstate, under his uninsured motorist policy.
- The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Allstate.
- Boynton, as appellant, appealed to the District Court of Appeal, Fifth District.
- The District Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment, finding in favor of Boynton.
- Allstate, as petitioner, sought review from the Supreme Court of Florida due to a certified conflict with another district court's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the statutory requirement that an insured be 'legally entitled to recover' from an uninsured motorist prevent recovery under an uninsured motorist policy when the tortfeasor is immune from liability under the Workers' Compensation Law?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Ehrlich
No. An insured is not 'legally entitled to recover' under an uninsured motorist (UM) policy where the uninsured tortfeasor is immune from liability due to the Workers' Compensation Law. The phrase 'legally entitled to recover' requires that the insured have a claim against the tortfeasor that could be reduced to a judgment in a court of law. The UM insurer effectively stands in the shoes of the uninsured motorist and can assert any substantive defense that the motorist could raise. Because Boynton's co-employee, Luke, was immune from tort liability under section 440.11 of the Florida Statutes, Boynton could not obtain a judgment against him. Therefore, Boynton was not 'legally entitled to recover' damages from Luke, and his UM carrier, Allstate, is not liable. This interpretation prevents UM coverage from expanding beyond its intended purpose of protecting against financially irresponsible motorists and ensures it does not duplicate remedies already provided by the workers' compensation system.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of Uninsured Motorist (UM) coverage in Florida by defining the prerequisite 'legally entitled to recover.' The Court establishes that UM coverage is not a form of first-party, no-fault insurance, but is contingent on the actual tort liability of the uninsured motorist. By allowing insurers to assert the tortfeasor's substantive defenses, such as workers' compensation immunity, the ruling prevents UM policies from becoming a secondary recovery mechanism for workplace injuries. This precedent limits the liability of UM carriers and reinforces the exclusive remedy principle of workers' compensation law.
