FLORIDA FARM BUREAU GENERAL INS. CO. v. BOBBI L. FISHER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA FLORIDA FARM BUREAU GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED. CASE NO. 1D02-5098 v. BOBBI L. FISHER, Appellee. _________________________/ Opinion filed November 21, 2003. An appeal from the circuit court for Nassau County. Alban E. Brooke, Judge. David J. Anderson, Jacksonville, for Appellant. S. Perry Penland, Jr., of S. Perry Penland, Jr., P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellee. WEBSTER, J. Appellant seeks review of a summary final judgment in a declaratory judgment action, holding that appellee is entitled to uninsured motorist benefits pursuant to an insurance policy issued by appellant to appellee s mother. Generally, interpretation of an insurance contract is a question of law, to be decided by the court. Lee v. Montgomery, 624 So. 2d 850, 851 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Such is the case here and, accordingly, our standard of review is de novo. Am. Equity Ins. Co. v. Van Ginhoven, 788 So. 2d 388, 390 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). By its clear terms, the policy affords uninsured motorist coverage only to (1) a named insured ; (2) a spouse of a named insured residing in the same household ; (3) a person related to the named insured or resident spouse by blood, marriage or adoption who resides in the same household; and (4) any other person occupying a covered auto of the named insured or resident spouse. It is equally clear that appellee does not fit within any of those categories. Accordingly, notwithstanding appellee s ingenious argument to the contrary, she is not entitled to uninsured motorist benefits pursuant to the insurance policy issued by appellant. Because the trial court s holding to the contrary is erroneous as a matter of law, we reverse and remand with directions that the trial court vacate the summary judgment entered in favor of appellee and enter summary judgment in favor of appellant. REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions. BARFIELD and BROWNING, JJ., CONCUR. 2
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.
