BOBBIE STEVENS AND AMERICAN FINANCE ADJUSTORS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
AMERICAN BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, 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.
The court held that a tow truck used to transport a towed vehicle does not qualify as 'mobile equipment' under the insurance policy's definition, and affirmed the trial court's declaratory judgments finding no coverage and dismissing remaining claims.
[1] A regulatory agency's determination that an insurance policy conforms to statutory requirements is entitled to deference and will not be disturbed absent a basis to do so…
[2] A land vehicle designed or maintained for the sole purpose of affording mobility to equipment such as power cranes, which transports the crane to a work site, qualifies a…
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 intelligenceAppellants appealed declaratory judgments finding no coverage under a general liability policy for a tow truck. The policy defined 'mobile equipment' …
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.
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals Bobbie Stevens and American Finance Adjustors, Inc., appeal declaratory judgments finding no coverage under a comprehensive general liability policy issued by appellee American Bankers Insurance Company in Florida. We affirm.
As to the first issue, the Florida Department of State, as the responsible regulatory agency, has determined that the subject insurance .policy conforms to the statutory requirements in effect at the time of the accident. See § 493.31, Fla.Stat. (1985). We see no basis on which to disturb that determination. As to the second issue, appellants contend that there should be coverage for the tow truck involved in 'the present case. They reason that the tow truck qualifies as “mobile equipment”; mobile equipment is covered under the policy. Insofar as pertinent here, the policy definition states:
“mobile equipment” means a land vehicle (including any machinery or apparatus attached thereto), whether or not self-propelled, ... (4) designed or maintained for the sole purpose of affording mobility to equipment of the following types forming an integral part of or permanently attached to such vehicle: power cranes....
(Emphasis added).
In our view this terminology refers to a land vehicle which transports a crane to the site or sites at which it is to perform its work. We do not think it applies to a tow truck lifting apparatus where, after it is engaged, the tow truck is then employed to transport the towed vehicle to the intended destination. See Williams v. Galliano, 601 So. 2d 769 (La.Ct.App.), writ denied, 604 So. 2d 1306 (La.1992); Truck Ins. Exchange v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 28 Cal.App.3d 787, 104 Cal.Rptr. 893 (1972).
As to the duty to defend, the judgment is affirmed on authority of Atkins v. Bellefonte Ins. Co., 342 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). But see Smith v. General Accident Ins. Co., 641 So. 2d 123, 126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (expressly disagreeing with Atkins). In view of the ruling on coverage and duty to defend, the trial court correctly dismissed Stevens’ remaining claims.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Earnest Hagen and Jerry M. Richardson v. AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co., 675 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…nally, I believe that Aetna had a duty to defend Hagen under the second amended complaint.2 In Smith v. General Accident Insurance Co. of America, 641 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), disagreed with by Stevens v. American Bankers Ins. Co. of Florida, 651 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995),3 the plaintiff sued a taxi cab company and its insurer for automobile negligence and negligent hiring after he was struck and injured by a taxi cab. Relying on an automobile exclusion, the insurance company refused to defend the…
-
Stevens v. Am. Bankers Ins. Co. OF Fla., 676 So. 2d 1367 (Fla. 1996)…PER CURIAM. We granted review of Stevens v. American Bankers Insurance Co. of Florida, 651 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), based upon express and direct conflict with the opinion in Smith v. General Accident Insurance Co., 641 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). See Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. However, after closer examination of the two cases, we hav…
Authorities Cited
- Smith v. Gen. Accident Ins. Co. of Am., 641 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Atkins v. Bellefonte Ins. Co., 342 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)