## Facts

- Richard B. Boynton, a Sears auto mechanic, was injured at work when a vehicle being repaired struck him.
- The driver was Boynton’s co-employee, James Luke, acting in the course of employment.
- The vehicle was leased to Xerox Corporation and had been left at Sears for repairs.
- Boynton dismissed Sears from the tort suit because workers’ compensation exclusivity barred tort liability against the employer under section 440.11, Florida Statutes.
- Luke’s automobile liability insurer denied coverage based on a business-use (“pursuit of business”) exclusion for the occurrence.
- Boynton sought uninsured motorist (UM) benefits under his Allstate policy, which covered damages the insured was “legally entitled to recover” from the owner or operator of an “uninsured motor vehicle.”

## Issues

1. Whether a vehicle is an “uninsured motor vehicle” for UM purposes when a liability policy exists but provides no coverage for the particular accident.
2. Whether an insured is “legally entitled to recover” UM damages when the alleged tortfeasor is immune from tort liability under workers’ compensation law.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Florida quashed the district court’s decision and remanded, resulting in denial of UM benefits and reinstatement of judgment for Allstate.
- The court held that a vehicle may be treated as “uninsured” when an applicable liability policy exists but does not cover the occurrence.
- The court held that Boynton was not “legally entitled to recover” damages from Luke because workers’ compensation immunity barred a tort judgment against him, and Allstate could assert that immunity as a defense to UM coverage.

## Legal Principles

- Under Florida’s UM statute and standard UM policy language, UM coverage is limited to damages the insured is “legally entitled to recover” from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle.
- A vehicle can be “uninsured” for a particular accident if, due to exclusions or other limitations, there is no effective liability coverage for that occurrence.
- “Legally entitled to recover” requires more than proving fault and damages; it permits the UM carrier to invoke substantive defenses available to the uninsured motorist, including statutory immunity.
- Workers’ compensation exclusivity and co-employee immunity operate as substantive bars to tort recovery; where such immunity prevents any tort judgment against the tortfeasor, UM benefits are unavailable.

## Conclusion

The court recognized that a vehicle may be treated as uninsured when its liability policy does not cover the accident, but it denied UM recovery because the insured could not obtain a tort judgment against the co-employee tortfeasor due to workers’ compensation immunity, defeating the “legally entitled to recover” requirement.


Allstate Insurance Co. v. Boynton, 486 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1986)