Mark A. Manfredi, et al v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, No. 12-16499 (11th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 12-16499 Date Filed: 12/17/2013 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 12-16499 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 6:12-cv-00013-GAP-TBS MARK A. MANFREDI, ROBIN MANFREDI, individually and as husband (and wife), Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign for profit corporation, Defendant-Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________ (December 17, 2013) Before MARTIN and HILL, Circuit Judges, and FULLER, * District Judge. * Honorable Mark E. Fuller, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Alabama, sitting by designation. Case: 12-16499 Date Filed: 12/17/2013 Page: 2 of 7 MARTIN, Circuit Judge: Mark and Robin Manfredi (the Manfredis) appeal the District Court s grant of summary judgment in favor of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm). After Mr. Manfredi was severely injured while driving his Ford F-150 pickup truck, State Farm paid the Manfredis $100,000 in uninsured motorist benefits. However, the Manfredis now argue that State Farm still owes them an additional $100,000 in uninsured motorist benefits under a different insurance policy covering their Ford Expedition SUV. Because we agree with the District Court that State Farm has fulfilled all of its obligations to the Manfredis, we affirm. I. On September 22, 2010, Mark Manfredi was driving his Ford F-150 pickup truck on State Road 436 in Orlando, Florida when his truck collided with another vehicle. Mr. Manfredi was severely injured. The driver of the other vehicle was uninsured. As a result, the Manfredis sought compensation from State Farm, their auto insurance provider. Because the F-150 was covered by an insurance policy that provided $100,000 in stacked uninsured motorist coverage, State Farm paid the Manfredis the full value of this benefit. In addition to their F-150, the Manfredis owned a Ford Expedition SUV, which also happened to be insured by State Farm. Although the Expedition was 2 Case: 12-16499 Date Filed: 12/17/2013 Page: 3 of 7 not involved in the accident, the Manfredis claimed that they were entitled to an additional $100,000 in uninsured motorist coverage under the Expedition insurance policy. State Farm rejected this claim because the uninsured motorist coverage on the Ford Expedition policy was non-stacked, and Mr. Manfredi was not injured while driving the Expedition. The Manfredis sued, and the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of State Farm. The Manfredis now appeal. II. We review de novo the District Court s grant of summary judgment, applying the same legal standards as the District Court. McCormick v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 333 F.3d 1234, 1242 43 (11th Cir. 2003). Summary judgment is appropriate if the evidence establishes no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The evidence, and all reasonable inferences, must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. McCormick, 333 F.3d at 1243. A. Florida law currently allows automobile insurance companies to offer two types of uninsured motorist (UM) coverage: stacked and non-stacked. See generally Fla. Stat. § 627.727(9); Swan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 60 So. 3d 514, 518 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). In Rando v. Government Employees Insurance Co., 556 F.3d 1173 (11th Cir. 2009), this Court provided a thorough 3 Case: 12-16499 Date Filed: 12/17/2013 Page: 4 of 7 history of the rules in Florida regarding stacked and non-stacked UM coverage, which we summarize here. Id. at 1176 80. Stacked UM coverage is expansive and generally provides protection whenever the insured is injured by an uninsured motorist, regardless of the conditions, locations, or circumstances of the accident. Coleman v. Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass n, 517 So. 2d 686, 689 (Fla. 1988). The Florida Supreme Court has stated that it makes no difference whether the insured is injured by an uninsured motorist while walking down the street, driving a friend s car, or riding on a bus. Id. People who have stacked UM benefits are covered in all of these scenarios because stacked UM coverage follows the insured whenever or wherever bodily injury is inflicted upon [the insured] by the negligence of an uninsured motorist. Id. (quoting Mullis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 252 So. 2d 229, 238 (Fla. 1971) (emphasis added)). It is this whenever or wherever aspect of stacked UM coverage which also gives rise to the practice of aggregating or stacking UM coverage limits when an insured has purchased multiple insurance policies. Id. An insurance company cannot deny UM benefits simply because the insured has purchased multiple insurance policies with overlapping coverage. See Sellers v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 185 So. 2d 689, 692 (Fla. 1966). Rather, when multiple UM coverages overlap, the insured may stack a number of uninsured motorist 4 Case: 12-16499 Date Filed: 12/17/2013 Page: 5 of 7 coverages equal to the number of coverages for which he paid a premium. Coleman, 517 So. 2d at 690; see also Collins v. Gov t Emps. Ins. Co., 922 So. 2d 353, 355 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) ( [S]tacked uninsured coverage enables the insured to stack the coverage for one owned automobile onto the coverage of another owned automobile. ). If it were otherwise, an insured would gain nothing by purchasing multiple insurance policies with stacked UM coverage. See United Servs. Auto. Ass n v. Roth, 744 So. 2d 1227, 1229 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) ( Stacking is a judicial creation, based on the common sense notion that an insured should be entitled to get what is paid for. ). By contrast, non-stacked UM coverage applies in a narrower set of circumstances. In exchange for a less expensive premium, non-stacked UM coverage only provides coverage for the vehicle on which the UM premium was paid. Swan, 60 So. 3d at 518; Fla. Stat. § 627.727(9)(e) (requiring that nonstacked UM coverage premiums be discounted by at least 20 percent). As a result, the policy limits of non-stacked UM coverage generally do not stack or aggregate because non-stacked UM coverage does not apply whenever or wherever the insured is injured by an uninsured motorist. See Swan, 60 So. 3d at 518. Rather, non-stacked UM coverage only protects the insured when he or she is injured while driving the covered vehicle. See id.; Fla. Stat 627.727(9)(b) ( If at the time of the accident, the injured person is occupying a motor vehicle the 5 Case: 12-16499 Date Filed: 12/17/2013 Page: 6 of 7 uninsured motorist coverage available to her or him is the coverage available as to that motor vehicle. ). B. With these principles in mind, we agree with the District Court that the Manfredis are not entitled to any additional UM benefits under their Ford Expedition policy. When purchasing their automobile insurance, the Manfredis expressly chose to have non-stacked UM coverage on their Expedition in exchange for a reduced premium. As a result, State Farm only had an obligation to provide UM benefits under the Expedition policy if the Manfredis were injured while driving the Expedition. See Swan, 60 So. 3d at 518 ( [U]nlike stacked coverage, non-stacked UM coverage does not provide coverage for every vehicle that the insured owns it only provides coverage for the vehicle on which the UM premium was paid. ). Because Mr. Manfredi was not injured while driving the Expedition, State Farm owes no UM benefits under that policy. The Manfredis respond that they are entitled to stack the UM coverage from the Expedition policy here because they paid for stacked UM coverage on their F-150 policy. The problem with this argument, however, is that it misunderstands how and why stacking occurs. As Florida courts have explained, stacking occurs when an insured has purchased multiple insurance policies that independently provide overlapping UM coverage over a particular accident. See 6 Case: 12-16499 Date Filed: 12/17/2013 Page: 7 of 7 Coleman, 517 So. 2d at 689. Here, the Manfredis purchased only one insurance policy that applies. The F-150 policy applied because stacked UM coverage applies whenever or wherever the insured is injured by an uninsured motorist. See Mullis, 252 So. 2d at 238. The Expedition policy, however, does not apply because non-stacked UM coverage only applies when the insured is injured while driving the covered vehicle, and Mr. Manfredi was not injured while driving his Ford Expedition. See Swan, 60 So. 3d at 518. Therefore, the District Court was correct to find that the Manfredis were not entitled to any UM benefits under the Ford Expedition policy, even though the F-150 policy provided stacked UM benefits. See Brannan v. GEICO Indem. Co., 2013 WL 5676587, at *6 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 18, 2013) (finding that non-stacked UM coverage for an insured s automobiles did not stack despite the fact that the insured had stacked UM coverage for the motorcycle involved in the accident). III. For these reasons, the District Court s grant of summary judgment to State Farm is AFFIRMED. 7

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.