Mark A. Manfredi v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Case: 12-16499 Date Filed: 12/17/2013 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-16499
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:12-cv-00013-GAP-TBS
MARK A. MANFREDI,
ROBIN MANFREDI,
individually and as husband (and wife),
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,
a foreign for profit corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(December 17, 2013)
Before MARTIN and HILL, Circuit Judges, and FULLER, * District Judge.
*
Honorable Mark E. Fuller, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Alabama,
sitting by designation.
Case: 12-16499 Date Filed: 12/17/2013 Page: 2 of 7
MARTIN, Circuit Judge:
Mark and Robin Manfredi (the Manfredis) appeal the District Court’s grant
of summary judgment in favor of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Company (State Farm). After Mr. Manfredi was severely injured while driving his
Ford F-150 pickup truck, State Farm paid the Manfredis $100,000 in uninsured
motorist benefits. However, the Manfredis now argue that State Farm still owes
them an additional $100,000 in uninsured motorist benefits under a different
insurance policy covering their Ford Expedition SUV. Because we agree with the
District Court that State Farm has fulfilled all of its obligations to the Manfredis,
we affirm.
I.
On September 22, 2010, Mark Manfredi was driving his Ford F-150 pickup
truck on State Road 436 in Orlando, Florida when his truck collided with another
vehicle. Mr. Manfredi was severely injured. The driver of the other vehicle was
uninsured. As a result, the Manfredis sought compensation from State Farm, their
auto insurance provider. Because the F-150 was covered by an insurance policy
that provided $100,000 in “stacked” uninsured motorist coverage, State Farm paid
the Manfredis the full value of this benefit.
In addition to their F-150, the Manfredis owned a Ford Expedition SUV,
which also happened to be insured by State Farm. Although the Expedition was
2
Case: 12-16499 Date Filed: 12/17/2013 Page: 3 of 7
not involved in the accident, the Manfredis claimed that they were entitled to an
additional $100,000 in uninsured motorist coverage under the Expedition insurance
policy. State Farm rejected this claim because the uninsured motorist coverage on
the Ford Expedition policy was “non-stacked,” and Mr. Manfredi was not injured
while driving the Expedition. The Manfredis sued, and the District Court granted
summary judgment in favor of State Farm. The Manfredis now appeal.
II.
We review de novo the District Court’s grant of summary judgment,
applying the same legal standards as the District Court. McCormick v. City of Fort
Lauderdale, 333 F.3d 1234, 1242–43 (11th Cir. 2003). Summary judgment is
appropriate if the evidence establishes “no genuine dispute as to any material fact
and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
The evidence, and all reasonable inferences, must be viewed in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party. McCormick, 333 F.3d at 1243.
A.
Florida law currently allows automobile insurance companies to offer two
types of uninsured motorist (UM) coverage: “stacked” and “non-stacked.” See
generally Fla. Stat. § 627.727(9); Swan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 60 So.
3d 514, 518–19 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). In Rando v. Government Employees
Insurance Co., 556 F.3d 1173 (11th Cir. 2009), this Court provided a thorough
3
Case: 12-16499 Date Filed: 12/17/2013 Page: 4 of 7
history of the rules in Florida regarding “stacked” and “non-stacked” UM
coverage, which we summarize here. Id. at 1176–80.
“Stacked” UM coverage is expansive and generally provides protection
whenever the insured is injured by an uninsured motorist, regardless of the
“conditions, locations, or circumstances” of the accident. Coleman v. Fla. Ins.
Guar. Ass’n, 517 So. 2d 686, 689 (Fla. 1988). The Florida Supreme Court has
stated that it makes no difference whether the insured is injured by an uninsured
motorist while walking down the street, driving a friend’s car, or riding on a bus.
Id. People who have “stacked” UM benefits are covered in all of these scenarios
because “stacked” UM coverage follows the insured “whenever or wherever bodily
injury is inflicted upon [the insured] by the negligence of an uninsured motorist.”
Id. (quoting Mullis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 252 So. 2d 229, 238 (Fla.
1971) (emphasis added)).
It is this “whenever or wherever” aspect of “stacked” UM coverage which
also gives rise to the practice of aggregating or “stacking” UM coverage limits
when an insured has purchased multiple insurance policies. Id. An insurance
company cannot deny UM benefits simply because the insured has purchased
multiple insurance policies with overlapping coverage. See Sellers v. United
States Fid. & Guar. Co., 185 So. 2d 689, 692 (Fla. 1966). Rather, when multiple
UM coverages overlap, the insured “may stack a number of uninsured motorist
4
Case: 12-16499 Date Filed: 12/17/2013 Page: 5 of 7
coverages equal to the number of coverages for which he paid a premium.”
Coleman, 517 So. 2d at 690; see also Collins v. Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co., 922 So. 2d
353, 355 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (“[S]tacked uninsured coverage enables the insured
to stack the coverage for one owned automobile onto the coverage of another
owned automobile.”). If it were otherwise, an insured would gain nothing by
purchasing multiple insurance policies with “stacked” UM coverage. See United
Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. Roth, 744 So. 2d 1227, 1229 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (“Stacking
is a judicial creation, based on the common sense notion that an insured should be
entitled to get what is paid for.”).
By contrast, “non-stacked” UM coverage applies in a narrower set of
circumstances. In exchange for a less expensive premium, “non-stacked” UM
coverage “only provides coverage for the vehicle on which the UM premium was
paid.” Swan, 60 So. 3d at 518; Fla. Stat. § 627.727(9)(e) (requiring that “non-
stacked” UM coverage premiums be discounted by at least 20 percent). As a
result, the policy limits of “non-stacked” UM coverage generally do not “stack” or
aggregate because “non-stacked” UM coverage does not apply “whenever or
wherever” the insured is injured by an uninsured motorist. See Swan, 60 So. 3d at
518. Rather, “non-stacked” UM coverage only protects the insured when he or she
is injured while driving the covered vehicle. See id.; Fla. Stat 627.727(9)(b) (“If at
the time of the accident, the injured person is occupying a motor vehicle the
5
Case: 12-16499 Date Filed: 12/17/2013 Page: 6 of 7
uninsured motorist coverage available to her or him is the coverage available as to
that motor vehicle.”).
B.
With these principles in mind, we agree with the District Court that the
Manfredis are not entitled to any additional UM benefits under their Ford
Expedition policy. When purchasing their automobile insurance, the Manfredis
expressly chose to have “non-stacked” UM coverage on their Expedition in
exchange for a reduced premium. As a result, State Farm only had an obligation to
provide UM benefits under the Expedition policy if the Manfredis were injured
while driving the Expedition. See Swan, 60 So. 3d at 518 (“[U]nlike stacked
coverage, non-stacked UM coverage does not provide coverage for every vehicle
that the insured owns—it only provides coverage for the vehicle on which the UM
premium was paid.”). Because Mr. Manfredi was not injured while driving the
Expedition, State Farm owes no UM benefits under that policy.
The Manfredis respond that they are entitled to “stack” the UM coverage
from the Expedition policy here because they paid for “stacked” UM coverage on
their F-150 policy. The problem with this argument, however, is that it
misunderstands how and why “stacking” occurs. As Florida courts have explained,
“stacking” occurs when an insured has purchased multiple insurance policies that
independently provide overlapping UM coverage over a particular accident. See
6
Case: 12-16499 Date Filed: 12/17/2013 Page: 7 of 7
Coleman, 517 So. 2d at 689. Here, the Manfredis purchased only one insurance
policy that applies. The F-150 policy applied because “stacked” UM coverage
applies “whenever or wherever” the insured is injured by an uninsured motorist.
See Mullis, 252 So. 2d at 238. The Expedition policy, however, does not apply
because “non-stacked” UM coverage only applies when the insured is injured
while driving the covered vehicle, and Mr. Manfredi was not injured while driving
his Ford Expedition. See Swan, 60 So. 3d at 518. Therefore, the District Court
was correct to find that the Manfredis were not entitled to any UM benefits under
the Ford Expedition policy, even though the F-150 policy provided “stacked” UM
benefits. See Brannan v. GEICO Indem. Co., 2013 WL 5676587, at *6 (N.D. Fla.
Oct. 18, 2013) (finding that “non-stacked” UM coverage for an insured’s
automobiles did not “stack” despite the fact that the insured had “stacked” UM
coverage for the motorcycle involved in the accident).
III.
For these reasons, the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to State
Farm is AFFIRMED.
7