AAA argued that because the policy defined "bodily injury" as "bodily harm, sickness or disease, including death therefrom" and given that Mr. Lewis was the only person who had sustained "bodily injury" in the accident, the bodily injury coverage limit of $100,000 per person was all that was available to the estate.

In response, the estate argued that based on the language set forth in the policy's "Limits of Liability" provision, bodily injury included damages for loss of consortium and, accordingly, each survivor suffered a separate "bodily injury" and, therefore, was entitled to his or her own "per person" liability limits.

In ruling for the estate and holding that Mr. Lewis' parents' loss of consortium claims were separate "bodily injury" claims such that their claims were not subject to a single per person limit, the trial court concluded that the policy was ambiguous as to the definition and scope of the term "bodily injury." Specifically, the trial court stated:

While the policy defines "Bodily Injury" as "bodily harm, sickness or disease, including death therefrom", Section II-Limits of Liability – which specifically addresses the liability for bodily injury damage under the personal automobile coverage – clarifies and expands that definition by providing that:

The Bodily Injury limit stated on the declarations page for each person [$100,000.00] is the most we will pay for bodily injury to one person in any one accident. Bodily injury to one person includes damages for care, loss of consortium, or loss of services sustained as the result of the same injuries by:

1. The injured person; and

2. Any other person.

The language can reasonably be interpreted to mean that damages for care, loss of consortium or loss of services is a "bodily injury" for insurance coverage purposes.

AAA appealed.

The Appellate Court's Decision

The appellate court reversed.

In its decision, the appellate court ruled that the term "bodily injury" was "plainly and unambiguously" defined in the policy to mean "bodily harm, sickness or disease, including death therefrom." The appellate court reasoned that inserting that definition into the policy's "limits of liability" provision would result in that provision meaning that the bodily injury limit stated on the declarations page ($100,000) was the most that AAA would pay where there was a bodily injury (bodily harm, sickness or disease, including death therefrom) to one person and that the damages subject to that limit included damages for the care of the injured person and loss of consortium or loss of services sustained as the result of the same injuries by any other person (here, Mr. Lewis' parents).

The appellate court found that the interpretation advocated by the estate – that the limits of liability provision expanded the definition of bodily injury to include loss of consortium – was "unreasonable" and flawed in at least three major respects:

• First, it unnecessarily created a conflict between the policy's definitions provision and its limits of liability provision, thereby producing two different definitions for the term "bodily injury."
• Second, the proposed interpretation negated the "in any one accident" limit set forth in the first sentence of the limits of liability provision given that the parents were not injured in the accident.
• Third, the estate's suggested interpretation rendered superfluous the words "to one person" in the second sentence of the limits of liability provision.

Accordingly, the appellate court concluded, the trial court had erred in determining that the definition of bodily injury as expressly set forth in the policy was somehow "expanded" by the policy's limits of liability provision, and it ruled that the trial court should have granted AAA's motion for summary judgment and denied the estate's summary judgment motion.

The case is Auto Club Ins. Co. v. Estate of Lewis, No. 5D18-3439 (Fla. Ct. App. Dec. 13, 2019). Attorneys involved include: Wendy F. Lumish and Daniel A. Rock, of Bowman and Brooke LLP, Miami, for Appellant. Jessica C. Conner, of Dean, Ringers, Morgan & Lawton, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee, The Estate of Norman Lewis. Frank A. Shepherd and Lesley-Anne Marks, of Gray Robinson, P.A., Miami, Amicus Curiae for American Property Casualty Insurance Association.