In Florida, can I recover for personal injury (from my uninsured motorist insurance company) if I was injured in a motor vehicle accident caused by an uninsured or underinsured driver (and/or car owner) who intentionally hit me?

Yes. Florida Courts have held (315 So.2d 553, 72 A.L.R.3d 1156) that an insured motorist's injuries, which occurred as result of uninsured motorist's intentionally and deliberately driving his truck into insured motorist, were caused by "accident," within purview of uninsured motorist policy provision that insurer will pay for all injuries caused by accident and arising out of use of uninsured automobile, and thus insured motorist could recover for injuries from his automobile liability insurer under such uninsured motorist policy provision.

The facts of the case which created the law above were that the insured motorist sued his automobile liability insurer to recover for injuries resulting from intentional wrong of uninsured motorist. The Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Vernon W. Evans, Jr., J., entered judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appealed. The District Court of Appeal, McNulty, C.J., held that insured motorist, who was innocent victim of intentional tort committed by uninsured motorist, could recover under uninsured motorist policy provision.

The same also applies to pedestrians and bicyclists who are struck by uninsured and/or underinsured motorists. Your underinsured motorist company will want to see proof that the "guilty" driver's insurance has denied coverage, or that the "at fault" driver has no insurance.

The reasoning for this law is that the injured parties have paid the insurance premiums and have contracted with the insurance carrier for protection. "The intent in the mind of the insured at the time of injury should determine whether the acts are accidental or intentional. To look through the eyes of the uninsured rather than the insured in this factual situation would require an unconscionable twisting of the obvious purpose of purchasing insurance coverage. 'All reason and logic would require a construction and interpretation that intent of mind should be taken from the viewpoint of the insured. Since the insured in the instant case was clearly not acting intentionally to (harm) herself, since the (insured) in the instant case was the party privy to the insurance contract; since the (insured) herein is the party who paid the premium for coverage to protect herself from the risk of injury caused by an uninsured third person it is the court's belief that the provisions of the insurance policy must be construed most favorably from the insured's viewpoint.

The court emphasized two other compelling reasons for our conclusions herein. The first is that s 627.727(1), F.S.1971 which requires uninsured motorist protection in automobile liability insurance contracts (unless affirmatively rejected), was designed for the protection of injured persons, not for the benefit of insurance companies or motorists who cause damage to others.