GEICO INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY_ a foreign for-profit by xiangpeng

VIEWS: 3 PAGES: 2

									       DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                            FOURTH DISTRICT
                           January Term 2009

    GEICO INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign for-profit
                        corporation,
                         Appellant,

                                   v.

  LAURIE REED, as Personal Representative of the Estate of BARTON
                             REED,
                            Appellee.

                             No. 4D08-575

                            [May 20, 2009]

STEVENSON, J.

   GEICO Indemnity Insurance Company, the defendant below, appeals
the trial court’s award of final summary judgment in favor of Laurie
Reed, the personal representative of the Estate of Barton Reed. We
reverse and remand because whether Barton Reed or his corporation,
B&G Central Station Signals, Inc., owned the van involved in the fatal
accident remains a genuine issue of material fact, removing this case
from the purview of summary judgment.

   Barton    R e e d died   in  a   car   accident    caused    b y an
uninsured/underinsured motorist. He had been driving a 1999 Ford
van. His widow, Laurie Reed, filed a claim with GEICO for uninsured
motorist benefits. GEICO denied her claim, explaining that the policy
specifically excluded uninsured motorist coverage in this instance
because Barton Reed owned the vehicle involved in the accident, but that
vehicle was not insured by GEICO. See Gov’t Employees Ins. Co. v.
Douglas, 654 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 1995) (approving the uninsured motorist
benefits exclusion). Laurie Reed sought a declaratory judgment on the
ground that B&G, not Barton Reed, owned the van.

    Barton Reed was the president and sole shareholder of B&G, a
security company he operated from his home. The 1999 Ford van was
titled and registered in Barton Reed’s name alone. Generally, a name on
a certificate of title to a motor vehicle creates a presumption of
ownership. Johnson v. Sentry Ins., 510 So. 2d 1219, 1220 (Fla. 5th DCA
1987). However, “[t]he name o n th e title is not the litmus test for
determining who owns a vehicle for insurance purposes.” State Farm
Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hartzog, 917 So. 2d 363, 364–65 (Fla. 1st DCA
2005). Laurie Reed filed an affidavit explaining that she mistakenly titled
the van in Barton Reed’s name, but it actually was used solely as a
business vehicle by B&G. We conclude that a finder of fact should
determine the credibility of Laurie Reed’s affidavit a n d whether it
sufficiently rebuts the presumption of ownership.

   Whether Laurie Reed is entitled to uninsured motorist benefits from
GEICO depends on whether Barton Reed or B&G owned the 1999 Ford
van. “‘If the record reflects even the possibility of a material issue of fact,
or if different inferences can reasonably be drawn from the facts, the
doubt must be resolved against the moving party.’” Fieldhouse v. Tam
Inv. Co., 959 So. 2d 1214, 1216 (Fla. 4th DCA) (quoting Winston Park,
Ltd. v. City of Coconut Creek, 872 So. 2d 415, 418 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)),
review denied, 969 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 2007). We find the question of
ownership in this case poses a genuine issue of material fact, so we
reverse the order granting final summary judgment and remand for
further proceedings.

   Reversed and remanded.

POLEN and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

                            *         *         *

  Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm
Beach County; Kenneth D. Stern, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50 2005 CA
10193 MBAE.

   Caryn L. Bellus of Kubicki Draper, Miami, for appellant.

   Bard D. Rockenbach of Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A., and Michael
S. Smith of Lesser, Lesser, Landy & Smith, PLLC, West Palm Beach, for
appellee.

   Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.




                                      2

								
To top