BALBOA INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
HARRY LEE MOTORS, INC., FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Balboa Insurance Company appealed a judgment requiring it to pay actual cash value for a stolen vehicle, arguing that paying such value would constitute an improper profit to the insured who had purchased the vehicle below market value. The court rejected this argument, holding that the policy's exclusion of "prospective profit" applies only to profits earned after the loss, not to the difference between purchase price and actual cash value.
The court held that the insurance company must pay the actual cash value of the stolen vehicle. The policy exclusion of "prospective profit" means only profit which might be earned with the vehicle subsequent to the date of loss, not the difference between the insured's original purchase price and the vehicle's actual cash value at the time of loss.
[1] An automobile insurance policy's exclusion for "prospective profit" refers to profit that might be earned with the vehicle subsequent to the date of loss, not profit deri…
[2] The limit of liability for loss to a covered automobile under a physical damage insurance policy shall not exceed the actual cash value of the automobile or the cost to r…
Previewing 2 of 3 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 insurance company contends that exclusion (i) prevents the insured from collecting more than it paid for the vehicle and to give "actual cash value" would give the insured a profit. We reject this argument and construe the policy exclusion in reference to "prospective" profit to mean profit which might be earned with the vehicle subsequent to the date of the loss.”
The court's rejection of the insurer's central argument and its interpretation of the "prospective profit" exclusion
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn insured party owned a vehicle that was stolen and covered under Balboa Insurance Company's automobile physical damage insurance policy. The insured…
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 Insurance Policy Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant insurance company contends that it does not have to pay “actual cash value” upon a loss of a vehicle because the insured had previously obtained the vehicle at a price less than “actual cash value”. The policy in pertinent part reads as follows:
AUTOMOBILE PHYSICAL DAMAGE INSURANCE (DEALERS) ¡fc # * * ⅜ * 1. The company will pay for loss to covered vehicles, under: Jfc Sfc ⅜? ⅜5 ⅝ 12. THEFT COVERAGE — caused by theft or larceny; * * ⅝ ⅜ * * EXCLUSIONS This insurance does not apply: ⅜: * ⅝: # * ⅝* (i) to the named insured’s prospective profit of any nature; ⅝ ⅜ ⅜ ⅝: ⅜: ⅝5 II. LIMIT OF LIABILITY I. The limit of the company’s liability for loss to any one covered automobile shall not exceed: (a) the actual cash value of such covered automobile ...; nor (b) what it would then cost to repair or replace such covered automobile ... with other of like kind and quality ... The insurance company contends that exclusion (i) prevents the insured from collecting more than it paid for the vehicle and to give “actual cash value” would give the insured a profit. We reject this argument and construe the policy exclusion in reference to “prospective” profit to mean profit which might be earned with the vehicle subsequent to the date of the loss. National Automobile Insurance Association v. Brumit, 98 So. 2d 330 (Fla.1957); General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corporation, Ltd., v. Kellin, 391 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company v. Phelps, 294 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974).
All parties concede that the judgment for the loss should be in the amount of $2,950. and we do hereby modify the final judgment in this regard to that amount.
Therefore the final judgment is affirmed as modified.
Affirmed as modified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Nat'l Auto. Ins. Ass'n v. Brumit, 98 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1957)
- Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Norwood M. Phelps, 294 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Gen. Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp., Ltd. v. Kellin, 391 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Tanner v. Tanner, 391 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)