Court Decision re:Golf Cart Accident

[rayschic]

Here's a link to an article about today's court decision about an accident that happened in 2008 between a Low Speed Vehicle and a golf cart. Be careful out there.

Court: Car Insurer Must Cover Damages From Golf Cart Accident « CBS Miami (http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/07/05/court-car-insurer-must-cover-damages-from-golf-cart-accident/)

[Swampy]

Here's a link to an article about today's court decision about an accident that happened in 2008 between a Low Speed Vehicle and a golf cart. Be careful out there.

Court: Car Insurer Must Cover Damages From Golf Cart Accident « CBS Miami (http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/07/05/court-car-insurer-must-cover-damages-from-golf-cart-accident/)

Rayschic: Great post. You actually include the web link to the source of your post. What this Court appellate decision will mean is that people that own modified golf carts will wind up being charged higher premiums on their motor vehicle insurance policies. Up to this point most insurers did not even inquire for underwriting what type of golf cart the insured owned. Another reason now not to have a street modified golf cart = lower MV policy premiums.

Swampy: Fernandina FROG on July 19!!!!

[bimmertl]

It's a lot more complicated than what this brief article describes. Here's the actual decision.

http://www.5dca.org/Opinions/Opin2013/070113/5D12-3363.op.pdf

Still somewhat hard to decipher. But it appears Snyder had an FR44 auto policy as a result of a prior DUI. So this is a unique type of policy. This link has somewhat of an explanation.

What is Florida FR44 Insurance? Florida No Fault Insurance (http://www.floridanofaultinsurance.info/fr44/)

So this policy covers use of vehicles, "not owned by an insured" (2nd paragraph page 2 in decision) which meet the definition of an automobile under the state Financial Responsibility laws. It's a non owner policy issued to comply with the states Fr44 requirements.

The insurance company disclaimed coverage since the vehicle was a golf cart, and not an "automobile" and the trial court agreed. The appeals court decided since the vehicle actually met the definition of an LSV, it met the requirements for coverage under the policy, and reversed the trial court decision. So the golf cart was covered under the auto policy issued pursuant to the FR 44 requirement.

This is a very unusual circumstance and you can't draw many conclusions from it as the FR44 requirements are somewhat unique.

Normally, your auto policy won't cover you while driving a golf cart you have leased, rented, borrowed or whatever.

The only reason this FR44 policy applied was due to the fact the cart met the definition of an LSV. If it was a plain old non LSV cart, the policy would not have applied.

[rubicon]

My initial reaction is that if someone owns a golf cart that exceeds 19.9mph then under the law it is going to be considered an LSV. Having said that then said owner has real expanded exposure. If the owner secures insurance and does not disclose to an insurer that the cart exceeds 19.9mph the owner has exposed himself to possible denial of coverage because the owner misrepresented it as a golf cart and not an LSV. Secondly if the owner does inform the insurer then the premium is going to be high.

If on the other hand said LSV owner fails to purchase insurance well then said owner leaves his asset exposed.

I carry full coverage of insurance on my cart 19.9mph golf cart and it is very reasonable. My golf cart policy does not cover use of rental. so if I need a rental then the rental company must agree to cover my use, otherwise I won't rent a cart.

I need to explore this case and related materials to assure myself that I am not unnecessarily exposed here

[rubicon]

I humbly apologize in having misspoken. I was once lauded for my coverage acumen. Now through the law of disuse I find my skills well wanting. This case was about coverage and the court ruled against the insurer. Clearly the insurance companies will review their underwriting standards and work toward eliminating this from happening to them again. In my view the court apparently did not find the fact that the status as a LSV relevant or materially changed the facts of the case. I do but well