21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 130b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2102TATUInsurance — Automobile — Ambiguity in policy’s out-of-state coverage clause is construed against insurer and in favor of coverage
UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Appellant, v. LOUIS TATUM, Appellee. Circuit Court, 15th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Palm Beach County, Civil Division. Case No. 502012AP000033, Division “AY”. L.T. Case No. 502010CC018003. October 2, 2013. Appeal from the County Court in and for Palm Beach County, Judge Robert Panse. Counsel: Douglas H. Stein, Miami, and Joseph G. Murasko, North Palm Beach, for Appellant. Erin E. Pogue, Miami, Roy D. Wasson, Miami, and Mark T. Packo, Boca Raton, for Appellee.
(PER CURIAM.) AFFIRMED. We affirm the outcome of the trial court, however, we write specifically to discuss the out-of-state coverage clause at issue in this case, which reads as follows:
If an auto accident to which this policy applies occurs in any state or province other than the one in which your covered auto is principally garaged, your policy will provide at least the minimum amounts and types of coverages required by law. However, no one will be entitled to duplicate payments for the same elements or loss.
(emphasis added). We agree with the trial court that this clause is subject to multiple reasonable interpretations. One reasonable interpretation of the clause is, as the Appellee argued, that the insured will receive the coverage that automobile insurance contracts must provide under Florida law. A second reasonable interpretation is, as the Appellant argued, that the insured will receive coverage for any insurance the insured would be required to purchase under Florida law. Because of the long-standing principle that ambiguity is construed against the insurer and in favor of coverage, we agree with the trial court’s decision in favor of the Appellee. See Meyer v. Hutchinson, 861 So. 2d 1185, 1188 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) [28 Fla. L. Weekly D2802c]; Roberts v. Fla. Lawyers Mut. Ins. Co., 839 So. 2d 843, 845 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) [28 Fla. L. Weekly D632c] (citing Flores v. Allstate Ins. Co., 819 So. 2d 740, 744 (Fla. 2002) [27 Fla. L. Weekly S499a]).
The Appellee’s Motion for Appellate Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED subject to the trial court’s determination that Appellee’s proposal for settlement was valid, enforceable, and made in good faith pursuant to Section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2012). The matter is remanded to the trial court to determine whether the Appellee’s proposal for settlement met the criteria set forth in Section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2012) and to determine, if applicable, the reasonable amount of attorney’s fees. (FINE, GILLEN, CROW, JJ. concur.)
* * *
