(386) 868-5848

A Question of Uninsured Motorist Coverage and Policy Exclusions

Legal case image featuring a music studio, highlighting a dispute and uninsured motorist coverage issues.

Bendix Thoermer v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 3210THOE
Insurance – Uninsured Motorist Coverage – Policy Exclusion – Newly Acquired Vehicles – Summary Judgment – Public Policy
Circuit Court, 17th Judicial Circuit, Broward County, December 11, 2024
Case No. CACE24001618
Judge: Jeffrey R. Levenson

Background of the Case

This case concerns uninsured motorist (UM) coverage under a State Farm insurance policy issued to the parents of Bendix Thoermer. The central dispute is whether the policy exclusion for vehicles owned by the insured, but not classified as “newly acquired cars,” bars UM coverage when an accident involves an uninsured motorist and a newly purchased motorcycle.

State Farm denied coverage for the accident, relying on a policy exclusion. Thoermer sued, arguing that the policy exclusion was ambiguous, invalid, and against public policy. Both parties moved for summary judgment, and the court ruled in favor of State Farm, finding that the exclusion clearly and unambiguously applied.

Factual and Procedural History

1. The Accident and Insurance Dispute

  • November 26, 2022: Bendix Thoermer was riding a motorcycle recently purchased by his father, Carsten Thoermer, when he was involved in a motor vehicle accident with Defendant Brooke L. Nobil, an uninsured driver.
  • The motorcycle was not insured separately at the time of the accident, and Carsten Thoermer later attempted to add it to his State Farm policy.
  • State Farm denied the claim, citing an exclusion in the Volkswagen Policy, which covered the 2018 Volkswagen Atlas owned by Carsten and Bianca Thoermer.

2. The Policy Exclusion

The State Farm policy contained a provision stating that UM coverage does not apply to an insured:

“WHO SUSTAINS BODILY INJURY while OCCUPYING A VEHICLE OWNED BY YOU IF IT IS NOT YOUR CAR OR A NEWLY ACQUIRED CAR.”

  • The Volkswagen Policy defined “your car” as the Volkswagen Atlas.
  • It defined a “newly acquired car” as a four-wheeled vehicle, excluding motorcycles.

Since the motorcycle did not meet the policy’s definition of a “newly acquired car”, State Farm denied coverage for the accident.

The Dispute Over Coverage and Public Policy

1. Plaintiff’s Arguments for Coverage

Bendix Thoermer challenged the policy exclusion on three main grounds:

  • Ambiguity & Policy Interpretation
    • Thoermer argued that a form approved by the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR) and a policy renewal notice created ambiguity, which should be resolved in favor of coverage.
  • Invalidity of the Stacking Waiver Form
    • Thoermer contended that the OIR-approved form rejecting stacked UM coverage was defective and, therefore, State Farm could not rely on the exclusion.
  • Public Policy Concerns
    • Thoermer asserted that Florida law disfavors treating newly acquired four-wheeled vehicles differently from two-wheeled motorcycles, making the exclusion against public policy.

2. State Farm’s Counterarguments

State Farm responded that:

  • The policy exclusion is unambiguous and clearly bars coverage for insureds occupying a vehicle they own if it is not a “newly acquired car” as defined by the policy.
  • The OIR-approved form was legally valid, and Thoermer’s arguments about its invalidity were baseless.
  • Florida law does not require UM coverage for newly acquired vehicles; thus, State Farm was free to define coverage as it did.

Court’s Ruling and Summary Judgment

1. Policy Exclusion Bars Coverage

The court found that the policy’s exclusion clearly applied and was not ambiguous:

“The exclusion quoted above is unambiguous and excludes UM coverage for the accident of November 26, 2022.”

2. No Merit to Plaintiff’s Arguments

  • The OIR-approved form was valid, and nothing in Florida law prevented State Farm from relying on the exclusion.
  • The policy and renewal notices did not create ambiguity.
  • Public policy did not require insurers to extend UM coverage to motorcycles just because it covered newly acquired four-wheeled vehicles.

3. Final Judgment for State Farm

  • The court granted final summary judgment in favor of State Farm on Counts I (Declaratory Judgment) and II (UM Coverage).
  • The court declared that State Farm had no obligation to provide UM benefits for the accident.
  • Plaintiff took nothing, and State Farm prevailed as a matter of law.

Key Takeaways: Uninsured Motorist Coverage and Exclusions

This case reinforces several principles of Florida insurance law:

  • Policy exclusions will be upheld if they are clear and unambiguous.
  • Insurers are free to limit UM coverage for newly acquired vehicles, as long as exclusions comply with Florida law.
  • Florida’s public policy does not mandate UM coverage for motorcycles simply because four-wheeled vehicles receive broader coverage.

This ruling provides insurers with strong precedent to enforce clearly worded exclusions and limits policyholders’ ability to challenge exclusions on public policy grounds.

Todays Insight

“The law is reason, free from passion.”

— Aristotle

BENDIX~1Download