4 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 227a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Husband who had apparent authority to obtain insurance coverage inuring to wife’s benefit also had apparent authority with regard to applicability of deductible
Reversed and remanded at 6 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 160a
ADELA LOPEZ, Plaintiff, vs. DAIRYLAND INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. In the County Court of Sarasota County. Case No. 95-3494. February 21, 1996. Emanuel LoGalbo, Jr., Judge. Counsel: Perry Tanksley, Sarasota, for Plaintiff. Andrew J. Russo, Tampa, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
On February 1, 1996, both sides presented argument in connection with defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Counsel have also prepared and filed initial as well as reply memoranda for which I am greatly indebted.
Having reviewed the file and case-law, I grant the motion. The issues have been substantially narrowed to a single question, given that the plaintiff is to be considered a “named insured” under the personal injury protection insurance contract: since it is necessary to postulate that plaintiff’s husband had the apparent authority to obtain the instant insurance coverage inuring to the benefit of plaintiff, may it nonetheless be said that he had no apparent authority to reject the applicability of the deductible? I find Acquesta v. Industrial Fire & Casualty Co., 467 So.2d 284 (Fla. 1985), is pertinent. The Court found it particularly incongruent that the Acquestas would argue “that apparent agency authority properly applies to obtain coverage under an insurance policy but does not apply to reject the uninsured motorist coverage under the policy.” 467 So.2d at 285. The notion that the Acquestas were married, as opposed to either being brother/sister or having some other type personal relationship, was not pivotal in my reading of Acquesta.
I grant the motion of defendant for summary judgment.
* * *
