Chandler v. Geico Indemnity Co.

Summary

The Florida Supreme Court reviewed whether a rented vehicle qualified as a "temporary substitute auto" under a Geico insurance policy when the vehicle was driven by an unauthorized driver under the rental agreement. Applying Florida's dangerous instrumentality doctrine and its precedents in Susco and Roth, the court held that contractual restrictions on the identity of the driver did not negate the owner's permission to use the vehicle or defeat coverage. The court quashed the First District's decision favoring Geico.

Holdings

1. The rental Hyundai qualified as a temporary substitute auto because Avis gave Shazier permission to use it as a substitute for her disabled insured vehicle.
2. Permission under the policy concerns the purpose for which the vehicle was entrusted, not the identity of the person operating it, so long as the use remains within the permitted purpose.
3. Geico could not rely on Avis's unauthorized-driver clause to avoid coverage because the clause was inconsistent with Florida's substantive dangerous-instrumentality law and was contained in a contract to which Geico was not a party.
4. Geico owed coverage, including the duty to defend and indemnify under the policy, for the insureds and injured parties.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the rental vehicle qualified as a temporary substitute auto under the Geico policy.
2. Whether Avis's contractual restriction against unauthorized drivers eliminated its permission for purposes of temporary-substitute-auto coverage when Shazier had permission to use the vehicle as a substitute for her disabled automobile.
3. Whether an unauthorized-driver clause in a rental agreement can defeat coverage or liability under Florida's dangerous instrumentality doctrine.
4. Whether the insurer owed a duty to defend and indemnify the insureds and injured parties.

Disposition

quashed