MARIO PEREZ, APPELLANT,
v.
UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS LONDON, 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.
Marine insurance policy providing cost-of-repair coverage for damaged vessel must pay actual repair costs ($40,642) rather than reasonable value of vessel when ambiguous policy language could support either interpretation.
A marine insurance policy providing cost-of-repair coverage without defining "reasonable value" is ambiguous and must be construed to provide cost-of-repair coverage rather than limiting recovery to the vessel's market value.
[1] Ambiguous marine insurance policy language limiting liability to cost of repairs or reasonable value must be construed against the insurer to provide cost-of-repair cover…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 "reasonable value" term, as stated above, is nowhere defined in the policy, is entirely ambiguous to whether it refers to a reasonable value of the cost of repairs or a reasonable value of the insured vessel”
Court's analysis of the ambiguous policy language and its interpretation
Mario Perez's vessel was damaged; the cost to repair it was $40,642, but the vessel's current market value was considerably lower.…
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 Marine Insurance Policy Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The final judgment under review is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to enter a judgment for the insured Mario Perez in the amount of $40,642.00 upon a holding that: (1) the relevant provision of the marine insurance policy in question [“In the event of loss or damage, cost of repairs to be paid without deduction, new for old ... the Company shall be liable for no more than the cost of repairs or a reasonable value”] affords cost of repair insurance coverage for the insured damaged vessel, (2) the “reasonable value” term, as stated above, is nowhere defined in the policy, is entirely ambiguous to whether it refers to a reasonable value of the cost of repairs or a reasonable value of the insured vessel, and to the extent it means the latter, cannot be employed to provide less insurance coverage than cost of repair coverage, DaCosta v. General Guaranty Insurance Co. of Fla., 226 So. 2d 104, 107 (Fla.1969), (3) the undisputed evidence below establishes that the cost of repairing the insured damaged vessel was $40,642.00 although the present market value of the vessel was considerably lower, so that the insured Mario Perez was entitled to the above-stated cost of repairs under the aforesaid marine insurance policy and not to the reasonable value of the entire vessel as found by the trial court below. Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Kassner, 322 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 333 So. 2d 41 (Fla.1976).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- DaCOSTA v. Gen. Guar. Ins. Co. OF Fla., 226 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1969)
- The Travelers Indem. Co. v. Kassner, 322 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)