Although not a Florida case, I found this case from the Sixth Circuit very interesting for two reasons. First, the claimant made a very creative argument in order to be entitled to first-party coverage. Second, the case highlights the fact that you never want to call someone else’s argument “ridiculous” because you might draw the ire of the court.
In Bennett v. State Farm (6th Circuit 2013), a pedestrian was struck by a vehicle covered by State Farm auto insurance. The parties stipulated that after the pedestrian was struck, she landed on the hood of the car where she sustained further injuries. In making a very creative argument, the issue came down to whether the pedestrian was an “occupant” of the vehicle—as that term is defined by State Farm’s policy—at the time she was on the vehicle’s hood. The policy defined “occupying” as “in, on, entering or alighting from.”
Counsel for State Farm called the claimant’s unique argument “ridiculous.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit did not agree and, further, did not appreciate counsel’s uncivil tone. Specifically, the court held that the definition of “occupying” clearly covered the pedestrian that was “on” the car’s hood when she was injured. It stated:
Here, as a matter of ordinary English usage, one might be skeptical that Bennett was an “occupant” of the Fusion during the time she was on its hood. Occupants are normally inside vehicles, not on them. But the parties to a contract can define its terms as they wish; and State Farm has done so here. Its policy for the Fusion defines “occupying” as “in, on, entering or alighting from.” And the parties have stipulated that Bennett was on the Fusion—specifically, on its hood—and that she “suffered further bodily injuries” while she was there.
Further, the court chastised State Farm’s attorney for calling the argument ridiculous because, simply, she was wrong.
There are good reasons not to call an opponent’s argument “ridiculous,” which is what State Farm calls Barbara Bennett’s principal argument here. The reasons include civility; the near-certainty that overstatement will only push the reader away (especially when, as here, the hyperbole begins on page one of the brief); and that, even where the record supports an extreme modifier, “the better practice is usually to lay out the facts and let the court reach its own conclusions.” But here the biggest reason is more simple: the argument that State Farm derides as ridiculous is instead correct.
Boom. The opinion can be viewed in its entirety here.
Florida Insurance Coverage Law 