She also sued her own auto insurance carrier, GEICO General Insurance Company, contending that the mobile gym was an uninsured auto under her policy and, therefore, that she was entitled to recover uninsured motorist benefits.

The trial court granted GEICO's motion for summary judgment, holding that the "unambiguous" provisions in the GEICO policy excluded coverage.

Ms. Deutsch appealed.

The Appellate Court's Decision

The appellate court affirmed, ruling that the mobile gym was not an uninsured auto under the GEICO policy because it was located for use as a premises.

In its decision, the appellate court explained that the GEICO policy provided that a vehicle "located for use as a . . . premises" was not an "uninsured auto." After noting that the policy did not define the term "premises," the appellate court rejected Ms. Deutsch's contention that the truck did not fit within the meaning of premises because it was "not a house, . . . not a building, and . . . not a tract of land."

The appellate court acknowledged that the truck was not a house, a building, or a tract of land. However, the appellate court reasoned, under the GEICO policy, the "central inquiry" was not whether the truck was real estate, but whether the truck was located for use "as" a premises – meaning as a "building, along with its grounds."

The appellate court found the following undisputed facts relevant:

• Mobile Fitness Centers did not have a brick and mortar office or gym – its sole "location" was the back of the Isuzu truck.
• Fitness equipment was fastened or bolted down in the truck so the gym's clients could work out safely inside the back of the truck.
• While Ms. Deutsch was working out, the gym was always plugged into her home.

In the appellate court's view, these facts led to the conclusion that clients worked out in the mobile gym only when it was "stationary, parked, and connected to a power source" and never when the gym was being driven as a vehicle.

Accordingly, the appellate court held, when used as a gym, the stationary truck was "located for use as a" building, just as any gym in a strip mall, and because the truck was being used as a "premises" when Ms. Deutsch allegedly was injured, it was not an uninsured auto under the GEICO policy.

The case is Deutsch v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., No. 4D18-2714 (Fla. Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2019). Attorneys involved include: Philip M. Burlington and Nichole J. Segal of Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach, Roberta M. Deutsch of Roberta M. Deutsch, LLC, Boca Raton, and Stuart F. Cohen of Conroy Simberg Ganon Krevans & Abel PA, Hollywood, for appellant. Sharon C. Degnan of Kubicki Draper, Orlando, for appellee.