GEICO maintained that Mr. Baron was not entitled to coverage for the incident because his policy defined an uninsured boater as a boater without insurance, or a hit-and-run boater, who collided with another boat.

GEICO asked the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to declare that Mr. Baron’s injuries were not covered under its policy. It moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the policy clearly stated that only a boater whose boat collided with another boat could be considered an uninsured boater for coverage purposes.

For his part, Mr. Baron argued that the online application and a subsequent phone call he made to GEICO led him to believe that he would be covered under the uninsured boater provision of his insurance policy regardless of whether there was a collision with another boat.

The District Court’s Decision

The district court granted GEICO’s motion.

In its decision, the district court pointed out that Mr. Baron never argued that the online application actually conflicted with the policy language and that he did not explain why he considered the contract language to be ambiguous.

The district court then agreed with GEICO and ruled that it was entitled to judgment on the pleadings with respect to its complaint for a declaratory judgment.

The district court concluded that Mr. Baron’s fraudulent inducement claim also failed, reasoning that Mr. Baron did not actually allege that the online application misrepresented anything, only that it failed to mention all the terms of the policy, such as the requirement that an injured party actually be on the subject boat during a collision in order to merit a payout under the uninsured boater provision. The district court also was not persuaded by Mr. Baron’s efforts to rely on representations that he said were made by a GEICO insurance agent that he spoke to over the phone after completing the application, concluding that, under Florida law, a party was “not justified in relying on oral representations that conflict with the terms of a subsequent written contract.”

The case is GEICO Marine Ins. Co. v. Baron, No: 6:19-cv-159-Orl-31EJK (M.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2019). Attorneys involved include: For GEICO Marine Insurance Company, Plaintiff, Counter Defendant: Lesley-Anne Marks, LEAD ATTORNEY, Theodore L. Shinkle, GrayRobinson, PA, Melbourne, FL. For Henry Baron, Defendant: Frank D. Butler, Kelly Ann LaVelle May, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Frank D. Butler, PA, Pinellas Park, FL; Jeffrey A. Ville, LEAD ATTORNEY, Jeffrey A. Ville, PA, Suite A, Melbourne, FL.