Federal District Court in Florida Grants Summary Judgment for Insurer, Finding that Transportation Network Company’s Policy Did Not Provide UM and UIM Coverage for the Driver

The defendant insurance company brought a declaratory judgment action to determine whether the policy it wrote to a Transportation Network Company (TNC) provided UM and UIM coverage to a TNC driver. The court noted that Florida’s Transportation Network Company Act requires UM/UIM coverage only “as required by the [Florida UM/UIM Statute].” Under Florida’s UM/UIM statute, a motor vehicle policy that provides coverage for “any specifically insured or identified motor vehicle” cannot be delivered or issued “unless uninsured motor vehicle coverage is provided[.]” Since the insurance policy at issue was not issued for specifically insured or identified vehicles, the statute’s unambiguous language does not require UM/UIM coverage, irrespective of any inconsistent legislative intent. Further, UM/UIM coverage was offered, but the premium was not paid. Accordingly, as a matter of first impression, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer, finding that UM/UIM coverage was not afforded to any party under the policy. This decision is on appeal, but if it is affirmed, it would mean that TNC drivers may not be afforded UM/UIM coverage in Florida. 

_{Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}