13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 889a
Insurance — Automobile — Coverage — Rental car used in business — Where policy unambiguously excluded coverage of any vehicle rented and used in insured’s employment or business, rental vehicle used by insured in door-to-door sales and delivery of educational books was excluded — Further, loss itself was excluded where policy provided that, unless rated for business use, insurance would not apply to claims arising from accidents occurring while insured vehicle was used in course of business, and policy was not rated for business use
JOHN ECHTERLING, Plaintiff, v. MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, a Florida corporation, Defendant. County Court, 9th Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County, Civil Action. Case No. 05-CC-3428, Division 73. June 9, 2006. Deb Sammons Blechman, Judge. Counsel: Hans Kennon, Morgan & Morgan, P.A., for Plaintiff. Paul A. Bernardini, Jr., Law Office of Thomas E. O’Hara, for Defendant.
Final summary judgment in favor of defendant AFFIRMED at 15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 960b
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE coming before the court on the 22nd day of May 2006 upon cross motions for Final Summary Judgment and after considering arguments of counsel, as well as examining the pleadings and other matters of record, the court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
This is an action for declaratory relief by the plaintiff for collision benefits under his automobile insurance policy with defendant (“Policy”). The plaintiff, a college student, had driven to Eastern Nebraska to begin his summer occupation. This involved door-to-door sales, and later delivery of, educational books. The plaintiff’s regular vehicle required mechanical repairs and he had rented a vehicle (rental car) upon arriving in Nebraska. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff was involved in a one-car accident and the rental car was severely damaged. The plaintiff had filed a claim with the defendant (Mercury) for the damage.
The loss was denied by the defendant because it was used during the plaintiff’s occupation. Although rental vehicles would normally be covered, they are not if they are rented and used in an insured’s occupation or business. The Court finds this particular exclusion to be clear and unambiguous and employs a plain and ordinary meaning analysis1. Additionally, the loss itself was excluded under the Policy for similar reasons, albeit under a different exclusion2. Had the policy had been rated for business use, the loss would have been covered.
In summary, the plaintiff’s use of the vehicle went beyond than what was contemplated by an ordinary private passenger automobile policy the moment he had set out to Nebraska for his occupation. Because the plaintiff does not dispute his use of the vehicle at the time of the loss, there is no material fact at issue and that the defendant is entitled to summary judgement as a matter of law.
For these reasons, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgement is GRANTED.
It is FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED the Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Summary Judgement is DENIED.
__________________
1Non-Owned Car — means a car not:
4. Rented and used in an insured’s employment or business
2GENERAL EXCLUSION section of the Policy, page 5, paragraph 6:
6. It is agreed that unless this policy is rated for business use the insurance afforded by this policy shall not apply with respect to any claims arising from accidents which occur while any motor vehicle insured by this policy is bing used in the course of the insured’s occupation, business, or employment.
* * *
