BUSINESS SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION CORPORATION, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
BEN WOOD CONSTRUCTION, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE; PARLIAMENT INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT, V. BEN WOOD CONSTRUCTION, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND BUSINESS SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION CORPORATION, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Two appellants, Business Security and Investigation Corporation and its insurer Parliament Insurance Company, challenged a judgment in favor of Ben Wood Construction. The court affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence of negligence and damages, and ruling that the insurer's liability coverage applied despite a property exclusion clause.
The appellate court held that sufficient competent evidence supported the verdict regarding foreseeability and proximate cause; expert testimony was properly admitted as its admissibility was not questionable, only its weight; special damages for 'Down Time' were properly proven through complaint allegations; and the insurer's liability coverage applied because the complaint allegations were sufficient to require the carrier to defend the insured.
[1] A jury verdict will be upheld if there is sufficient competent evidence in the record to justify it, even if questions of foreseeability and proximate cause are close.
[2] Arguments against the weight of expert testimony are properly directed at the weight to be afforded such testimony, not its admissibility.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the questions of foreseeability and proximate cause are close; however, our study of the record and briefs leads us to believe there is sufficient competent evidence in the record to justify the verdict”
Court's rationale for upholding the verdict despite acknowledging evidentiary weakness on foreseeability and proximate cause issues
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBusiness Security and Investigation Corporation was sued by Ben Wood Construction for damages allegedly caused by negligent acts. The case involved qu…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Care, Custody, Or Control Exclusion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Business Security and Investigation Corporation, Inc., in seeking reversal of a final judgment for appellee, Ben Wood Construction, Inc., poses five points for our consideration. The primary thrust of three of said points is that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to support the verdict for appellee, Ben Wood Construction, Inc. We concede that the questions of foreseeability and proximate cause are close; however, our study of the record and briefs leads us to believe there is suffi cient competent evidence m the record to justify the verdict.
We also find no error in the trial court’s rulings admitting expert testimony and the evidence of damages for “Down Time.” Appellant’s argument against admissibility of the expert’s testimony was more properly directed at the weight to be afforded such testimony rather than its admissibility. Regarding the special damages for Down Time, it appears the allegations of the complaint were sufficient as a basis to prove the specific items involved. If appellant were in doubt as to the extent of this claim, it could have moved for more definite statement or made inquiry via discovery.
Appellant, Parliament Insurance Company, contends on this appeal that the liability coverage which its policy afforded Business Security and Investigation Corporation, Inc., is not applicable here because the policy contains an exclusion from liability for damage to property in the care, custody or control of the insured. The parties agree that the duty of the insurer to defend the insured is determined by the allegations of the complaint. National Union Fire Insurance Company v. Lenox Liquors Inc., 358 So. 2d 533 (Fla.1977). Looking to the complaint filed by Ben Wood Construction, Inc., we hold the allegations are sufficient to require that the carrier defend the insured and the proof, though not by any means overwhelming, is adequate to support the finding in favor of coverage.
Accordingly, the judgments and orders appealed from are affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
DOWNEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., and FUTCH, M. DANIEL, Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- The Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Lenox Liquors, Inc., 358 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 1977)