THE ESTATE OF ANTHONY BOMBOLIS, THE ESTATE OF LUELLA EDITH DELWICHE, THE ESTATE OF CATHERINE M. DINAN, THE ESTATE OF HAROLD STEWART, THE ESTATE OF JACKIE WOOD GAFFNEY, THE ESTATE OF GENEVIEVE MORRIS, THE ESTATE OF A. VICTOR BRUNO, CAROLE ANN UPHAM, VIORICA DOBRILLA, RICHARD PENENO, WILLIAM PENENO, CONRAD NOLETTE AND WILLIAM CAREY, APPELLANTS,
v.
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, JOSEPH OLDANI, II, P.A., A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION AND JOSEPH OLDANI, II, 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.
The court held that the policy exclusion for dishonest acts applied to the P.A. as well as the individual lawyer.
Plaintiffs sued a lawyer and his professional association for legal malpractice after the lawyer misappropriated funds. The lawyer's insurer obtained …
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 Construction Of Insurance Policy Exclusions cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
Appellants were the plaintiffs in a legal malpractice claim brought against a lawyer named Joseph Oldani and the Joseph Ol-dani, P.A. The claim alleged that Oldani had misappropriated money from an estate and that the P.A. had been negligent in hiring and retaining Oldani.
Oldani pled guilty to first degree grand theft for the conduct on which this action is based, and the trial court granted his insurer, the appellee, a summary judgment because the policy did not provide coverage for “any claims arising out of ... any dishonest, fraudulent, criminal or malicious act or omission” by the insured.
Plaintiffs do not complain about the judgment in regard to Oldani individually, but argue that the court erred in entering judgment in favor of the P.A. They argue that the words “arising out of’ in the exclusion are ambiguous and should be construed against the insurer, citing Westmoreland v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., 704 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). This case is distinguishable from West-moreland because in Westmoreland the ambiguity arose out of more than the words “arising out of.” In the present case there is no ambiguity created by the 'words following “arising out of’ and, if there is no coverage for Oldani because of this exclusion, which plaintiffs apparently concede, it follows that there is no coverage for the P.A, either. Affirmed.
TAYLOR, J., and WHITE, ALICE BLACKWELL, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Taurus Holdings, Inc. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 913 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 2005)…roximate causation. The Fourth District has since clarified, however, that the ambiguity found in the West-moreland policy was a product of the “arising out of’ language combined with other policy language. See Estate of Bombolis v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 740 So. 2d 1229, 1230 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). As clarified, therefore, Westmoreland does not hold that the “arising out of’ language, standing alone, is ambiguous.2 We, too, have interpreted the phrase “arising out of,” although we interpreted an insuring clause rath…
-
Dueno v. Modern USA Ins. Co., 152 So. 3d 60 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)…proximate causation. The Fourth District has since clarified, however, that the ambiguity found in the Westmoreland policy was a product of the “arising out of’ language combined with other policy language. See Estate of Bombolis v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 740 So. 2d 1229, 1230 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). As clarified, therefore, Westmoreland does not hold that the “arising out of’ language, standing alone, is ambiguous. Taurus Holdings, 913 So. 2d at 533. The Supreme Court also noted that “[ojther courts applying Florida…
-
Allstate Ins. v. Safer, 317 F. Supp. 2d 1345 (M.D. Fla. 2004)…, 788 So.2d at 1099-1100 (same). Additionally, at least one panel in the Fourth District Court of Appeal appears to have retreated from Westmoreland's holding that "arising out of” is ambiguous. See Estate of Bombolis v. Cont’l Cos. Co., 740 So.2d 1229, 1230 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). The Court agrees with the majority Florida view that the exclusion is not ambiguous. 5 . Kammerer’s Second Amended Complaint also alleges that the vehicle was being used to advertise Safer Distributor. {Id. at 2…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Westmoreland v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 704 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)