25 Fla. L. Weekly D857c
Insurance — Homeowners — Exclusions — Policy clearly and unambiguously provided that bodily injury coverage was not extended to named insureds — Severability of interest provision of policy does not provide avenue of relief to plaintiff, a named insured, who sought coverage for bodily injury allegedly caused by negligence of another named insured — Trial court may not sever one named insured from another named insured effecting a severance within an integrated class
ZAEDY POZO, Appellant, vs. FLORIDA RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY and CASUALTY JOINT UNDERWRITING ASSOCIATION, Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D99-1595. L.T. Case No. 99-3537. Opinion filed April 5, 2000. An appeal from the Circuit Court of Dade County, David L. Tobin, Judge. Counsel: Karen Curran; Barbara Green, for appellant. Angones, Hunter, McClure, Lynch & Williams and Christopher J. Lynch, for appellee.
(Before COPE, SHEVIN and SORONDO, JJ.)
(SHEVIN, Judge.) We affirm the order dismissing the complaint. The trial court correctly ruled that the homeowner’s policy exclusion precluded coverage for injuries suffered by plaintiff, a named insured, allegedly caused by the negligence of another named insured. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the bodily injury exclusion is clear and unambiguous; the exclusion provides that bodily injury coverage is not extended to named insureds as those insureds are defined in the policy. See Newman v. National Indem. Co., 245 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Sciaudone v. Steuk, 512 A.2d 1108 (N.H. 1986) (Souter, J.). In addition, the severability of interest provision does not limit the bodily injury exclusion; the court may not sever one named insured from another named insured effecting a severance within an integrated class. See Fidelity & Cas. Co. of N.Y. v. Fonseca, 358 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 365 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 1978); Sciaudone, 512 A.2d at 1108.
Accordingly, we conclude that the policy’s clear and unambiguous language excludes coverage for plaintiff’s claim and that the severability clause does not provide an avenue of relief to plaintiff.
Affirmed.