DONN W. SWIGERT AND BENADINE E. SWIGERT, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
AMERICAN BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1971-04-13
No. 70-820
Before CHARLES CARROLL, BARK-DULL and HENDRY, JJ.
247 So. 2d 737 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1971) Positive Treatment
Cited by 5 cases

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.

Synopsis

Homeowners insurance policy covered unscheduled personal property on the premises but excluded business property only when off the premises. The court held that by specifically excluding business tools while away from the premises and remaining silent on coverage while on the premises, the policy implicitly covered the insured's tools of his trade when stolen from a truck parked on the insured's property.


Holding

The court reversed and held that the tools of the trade are covered under the policy when on the premises. The explicit exclusion of business property while off the premises creates an implication that such property is covered when on the premises. This holding is limited to the specific facts where the policy specifically excluded business chattels while off premises and remained silent while on premises.


Headnotes

[1] Insurance policies are construed most strongly against the insurer, and any ambiguity is resolved adverse to the insurer.

[2] An exclusion in an insurance policy for business property off the premises implies coverage for business property when it is on the premises, absent a specific exclusion.

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

Key Quotes

“Insurance contracts are prepared by the insurers and are construed most strongly against the companies preparing them.”

Establishes the fundamental principle of contra proferentem that insurance policies are interpreted against the drafter.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The Swigerts purchased homeowners insurance from American Bankers Insurance Company. The policy covered unscheduled personal property on the premises …

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The appellants purchased certain homeowners insurance from the appellee, with provisions covering “unscheduled personal property usual or incidental to the occupancy of the premises as a dwelling, owned, worn or used by the insured, while on the premises, * * * The policy further provided that certain personal property of the insureds while off the premises and used in business was excluded from coverage, as follows:

* * * * * *
“2. Away from premises: This policy also covers unscheduled personal property as described and limited, while elsewhere than on the premises, anywhere in the world, owned, worn or used by an Insured, or at the option of the Named Insured, owned by a guest while in a temporary residence of, and occupied by an Insured or owned by a residence employee while actually engaged in the service of an Insured and while such property is in the physical custody of such residence employee or in a residence temporarily occupied by an Insured. Property pertaining to a business is not covered.” [emphasis added]

No such exclusion applied to such personal property if on the premises.

The insureds suffered a loss by virtue of the husband’s “tools of his trade” being stolen from his employer’s truck while parked on the insureds’ premises. Suit was brought and the trial judge, sitting non jury, denied recovery, finding the “tools of the trade” should not be included in the unscheduled personal property. We reverse. -

Insurance contracts are prepared by the insurers and are construed most strongly against the companies preparing them. Miller Electric Company of Florida v. Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, Fla.App. 1965, 171 So.2d 40; Hartnett v. Southern Insurance Company, Fla. 1965, 181 So.2d 524; Financial Fire & Casualty Company v. Callaham, Fla.App. 1967, 199 So.2d 529; Americas Aviation & Marine Insurance Co. v. Beverly Bank, Fla.App. 1969, 229 So.2d 314. Any ambiguity in the policy is resolved adverse to the insurer. Continental Casualty Company v. Borthwick, Fla.App. 1965, 177 So.2d 687; St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company v. Icard, Merrill, Cullis & Timm, Fla.App. 1967, 196 So.2d 219; Financial Fire & Casualty Company v. Callaham, supra. When an insurance company makes reference to an item in an exclusion as in the instant case [no liability for business chattels while off the premises], by implication there would be liability when the business chattels or “tools of the trade” were on the premises. Palatine Insurance Company v. Whitfield, 73 Fla. 716, 74 So. 869; Poole v. Travelers Insurance Company, 130 Fla. 806, 179 So. 138; National Automobile Insurance Association v. Brumit, Fla. 1957, 98 So.2d 330; Osborne v. Security Insurance Company, 155 Cal.App.2d 201, 318 P. 2d 94; Aetna Life Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn. v. Bidwell, 192 Tenn. 627, 241 S.W. 2d 595; 18 Fla.Jur., Insurance, § 94; Vol. 1, Couch on Insurance 2d, §§ 15:47, 15:92.

This opinion is not to be construed as holding that “tools of the trade” will at all times be included in unscheduled personal property under a homeowners policy, but is limited to the specific facts of this case, *739wherein the policy specifically excluded them while off the premises and remained silent while on the premises.

The judgment here under review in this cause having been adverse to the insureds, the same is hereby set aside and reversed with directions to enter a judgment for the appellants in the sum of $4,144.02,1 plus interest, costs, and reasonable attorney’s fees.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • …sured and against the party “who drew the contract or chose the language used”. 18 Fla.Jur., Insurance, p. 86; Financial Fire & Casualty Co. v. Callaham, Fla.App.1967, 199 So. 2d 529. See also Swigert v. American Bankers Insurance Co., Fla.App.1971, 247 So. 2d 737. Accordingly, the order of the trial court should be reversed. . The third party complaint alleged various causes of action outlined in appellant’s brief at pages 5-6, as follows: (1) illegal conversion, (2) trespass quare clausem fregit, (3) brea…
    1 / 2
  • …Certiorari denied. 247 So. 2d 737. CARLTON, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw