KAREN B. HARRIS, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO., APPELLEE
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.
Karen Harris appealed the grant of summary judgment denying insurance coverage for her boat's engine explosion. The First District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the explosion constituted an insured loss because it resulted from both a mechanical failure and an ensuing fire, bringing it within the policy's coverage despite the exclusion for mechanical breakdown.
The court held that the engine explosion is covered because it constitutes a loss caused by both a mechanical failure and an ensuing fire or accident. The exclusionary clause's qualification permitting coverage when fire or other insured perils ensue from mechanical failure applies to this case.
[1] Summary judgment is inappropriate when evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, establishes a genuine issue of material fact regarding insura…
[2] An insurance policy exclusion for mechanical breakdown does not apply when a fire or other ensuing accident results from the mechanical failure.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“On appeal from an order granting summary judgment the appellate court must draw every possible inference in favor of the party against whom summary judgment was entered.”
Establishes the standard of review applicable to summary judgment appeals, requiring the court to view facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarris owned a boat insured against direct physical loss from any external cause, with an exclusion for mechanical or electrical breakdown unless fire…
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 Exclusion Clause Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of an order granting summary judgment in favor of appellee upon the issue of insurance coverage under the terms of an insurance contract. We reverse the order appealed.
Appellant owns a boat which was insured under a contract providing coverage
. .. against all risks of direct physical loss of or damage to the insured property from any external cause.. ..
The contract expressly excluded
. . . loss or damage caused by or resulting from any . . . mechanical or electrical breakdown or failure unless fire or other accident ensues and then only for the loss or damage by such ensuing fire or accident. .. .
While appellant’s boat was being started the engine exploded. Expert testimony indicates that the explosion was the result of a mechanical failure which allowed an excessive amount of fuel to enter the engine, and that when the starter was activated a spark ignited the excess fuel, thereby causing the explosion. The affidavit of a witness indicates that she “saw flames shoot out of the cockpit of the boat” and an “engine fire” at the time of the explosion.
On appeal from an order granting summary judgment the appellate court must draw every possible inference in favor of the party against whom summary judgment was entered. Wills v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 351 So. 2d 29 (Fla.1977). Applying this rule, we conclude that the evidence in the present case establishes mechanical failure and damage by an ensuing fire or accident. In ruling to the contrary the trial court expressly relied on Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. v. Cramer, 178 So. 2d 581 (Fla.1965); we find that the lower court’s reliance on Cramer is misplaced. That case involved only the melt-down of a hot engine, in contrast to the rapid-combustion explosion in this case. The court in Cramer recognized that coverage would be extended “[i]f heat caused by the mechanical breakdown of the engine had resulted in damage by fire” or other insured peril. 178 So. 2d 583. The qualification of the exclusionary clause in the present case clearly contemplates coverage as a loss “from any external cause” when “fire or other accident ensues” from mechanical failure such as the fuel accumulation here in question. This accords with the authorities recognized in the cited opinion which construe similar clauses to exclude loss “where the breakdown is not followed or accompanied by the coming into play of a peril insured against which in turn causes or contributes to a resultant loss,” supra at page 583.
The order appealed is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
MILLS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Harris, 426 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…MILLS, Judge. Pursuant to our opinion in Harris v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 409 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), the trial court on remand rendered summary judgment in favor of Harris, the owner of a boat policy issued by United States Fidelity and Guaranty. For the reasons stated in our prior opinion, we affirm the trial court’s action.…
-
The Travelers Ins. Co. v. Hernandez, 541 So. 2d 1368 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…[*1369] PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Harris v. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co., 409 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Compare Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Cramer, 178 So. 2d 581 (Fla.1965).…
Authorities Cited
- Wills v. Sears, 351 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 1977)
- Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Cramer, 178 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 1965)
- Johnson v. Taylor Int'l Corp., 178 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 1965)