For her part, Ms. Willis maintained that the UM exclusion was invalid as inconsistent with the statutory intent of the UM statute set forth in Section 627.727, Florida Statutes, that auto insurance policies provide UM coverage reciprocal to liability coverage. Ms. Willis argued that because her policy provided liability coverage for damages she caused while operating a non-owned golf cart, the UM provision could not exclude coverage for bodily injury she sustained from an uninsured motorist operating a non-owned golf cart.

The trial court determined that Ms. Willis was entitled to UM coverage. Among other things, the trial court found merit in Ms. Willis' argument that the UM policy exclusion was invalid because there was no reciprocal limitation on liability coverage. The trial court entered a final judgment awarding Ms. Willis $50,000 in UM benefits.

Amica appealed.

Florida Law

Section 627.727(1) states that:

No motor vehicle liability insurance policy which provides bodily injury liability coverage shall be delivered or issued

unless UM coverage also is provided. Furthermore:

The limits of uninsured motorist coverage shall not be less than the limits of bodily injury liability insurance purchased by the named insured.

Section 627.727(2).

The Appellate Court's Decision

The appellate court affirmed the final summary judgment awarding Ms. Willis UM benefits under the terms of her Amica policy.

In its decision, the appellate court explained that Amica's insurance policy contained a UM limitation that provided liability coverage for injuries Ms. Willis caused while operating a non-owned golf cart, but that excluded UM coverage for injuries she sustained from an uninsured motorist operating a non-owned golf cart.

The appellate court then ruled that, by failing to provide Ms. Willis with UM coverage reciprocal to its liability coverage, the UM exclusion was "inconsistent with the policy of the UM statute."

It was not persuaded by Amica's argument that the UM exclusion did not violate the intent of the UM statute because Florida's Financial Responsibility Law ("FRL") did not require liability insurance for a golf cart and, therefore, that the exclusion of golf carts from UM coverage did not reduce UM coverage below that which would have been available if the tortfeasor had liability insurance that complied with the FRL.

The appellate court said that it was "not convinced" that an exclusion that left in place the minimum UM coverage required by the FRL was sufficient to satisfy the intent of the UM statute when the insured purchased liability insurance in excess of those requirements. In those cases, the appellate court declared, the UM exclusion did not protect "innocent persons" who were injured by uninsured motorists "by providing the reciprocal of the liability coverage."

The appellate court ruled that Ms. Willis had obtained liability coverage that exceeded the minimum required by law, and because UM coverage followed liability coverage, Amica's UM policy "was required to provide reciprocal coverage."

Therefore, the appellate court concluded, the trial court had properly determined that the UM exclusion for vehicles "[d]esigned mainly for use off public roads while not on public roads" was invalid under the circumstances of this case.

The case is Amica Mutual Ins. Co. v. Willis, No. 2D16-2319 (Fla. Ct.App. Jan. 17, 2018). Attorneys involved include: Douglas M. Fraley of Molhem & Fraley, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant. Kristin A. Norse and Stuart C. Markman of Kynes, Markman & Felman, P.A., Tampa; and Anthony T. Martino of Clark & Martino, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.

FC&S Legal Comment

Courts in other states with UM laws analogous to Florida's have concluded that UM coverage must be the reciprocal of liability coverage that exceeded that required by law. See, e.g., Bartning v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 783 P.2d 790 (Ariz. 1989) (In banc); Mission Ins. Co. v. Brown, 407 P.2d 275 (Cal. 1965) (en banc); State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Marquez, 28 P.3d 1132 (N.M. Ct.App. 2001).

In Bartning, for example, the Arizona Supreme Court declared invalid a UM provision that did not extend coverage to losses occurring in Mexico because the liability provision provided such coverage. The court recognized that state law did not require liability coverage in Mexico but concluded that UM coverage must be coextensive with the actual liability coverage that was purchased. The court adopted the following reasoning:

Taking the minimum area requirement for issuing liability policies and imposing it as an uninsured motorist coverage area restriction . . . overlooks the remedial purpose of the uninsured motorist statute and the policy that it be liberally construed to effectuate that purpose. . . . Efforts by insurers to frustrate this statute by writing limitations into their policies . . . should not be validated.

Uninsured motorist coverage reasonably follows liability coverage. Thus, the statute sets no boundaries because at a minimum, they must coincide with the liability policy boundaries in view of the statutory language that "no" liability policy is to issue without uninsured motorist coverage.

Id. at 792 (quoting Transamerica Ins. Co. v. McKee, 551 P.2d 1324 (Ariz. Ct.App. 1976) (Hathaway, J., specially concurring)).