LITTLE JUDY INDUSTRIES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
FEDERAL INSURANCE CO., 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.
Little Judy Industries sought recovery under an all-risk aircraft insurance policy for loss of an engine that failed due to negligent repair work. The insurer denied the claim based on an exclusionary provision for mechanical breakdown, and the trial court granted summary judgment for the insurer. The appellate court affirmed, holding that mechanical failure traceable to negligent repair still constitutes mechanical breakdown within the policy's exclusion.
The exclusionary provision for mechanical breakdown applies even when the mechanical failure is traceable to or results from negligent repair work. Mechanical failure caused by negligent work does not become something other than mechanical failure simply because negligence was involved in its causation.
[1] An all-risk insurance policy exclusion for mechanical breakdown or failure applies even if the failure is traceable to negligent repair work.
[2] Damage resulting from negligent repair or assembly of an engine constitutes mechanical failure for purposes of an insurance policy 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“The fact that the failure thereof was traceable to negligence in its repair or to improper repair or assembly of the engine did not make it other than a mechanical failure.”
Establishes the court's core holding that negligence in repair does not change the character of a mechanical failure for purposes of policy exclusions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLittle Judy Industries owned an aircraft insured by Federal Insurance Co. under an all-risk policy. During a test flight on December 27, 1971, the air…
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 Negligent Repair cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant filed an action against the appellee seeking recovery under an insurance policy for damage to an insured aircraft, consisting of loss or destruction of an engine.
The complaint alleged: “That the repair and replacement of a certain temperature pressure regulator and engine oil cooler in the aircraft’s number two engine was negligently and improperly completed and that as a result said engine overheated and failed internally during a test flight which took place on December 27, 1971, resulting in total loss of the engine.”
The aircraft was insured by the appel-lee under an all-risk policy. The insurer rejected the plaintiff’s claim for loss of the engine, on the basis of an exclusionary provision rendering the coverage inapplicable “to damage which is due and confined to wear and tear, deterioration, freezing, mechanical, structural or electrical breakdown or failure, unless such damage resulted from other damage covered by this policy.”
In this case, in which it was established that the mechanical breakdown or failure of the engine was traceable to or the result of negligent work of a mechanic thereon, the trial court held the exclusionary provision was applicable, and granted sum*15mary judgment in favor of the defendant insurer. The plaintiff appealed.
On consideration of the record, briefs and arguments of counsel we conclude the holding of the trial court was correct. It was shown that the loss was due to mechanical failure of the engine. The fact that the failure thereof was traceable to negligence in its repair or to improper repair or assembly of the engine did not make it other than a mechanical failure. In a great many, if not most instances the mechanical failure of an engine could be attributed to some act of commission by improper or negligent work thereon as occurred here, or to negligent omission to inspect and repair or replace parts where needed, or other neglect in the care of the machine. The exclusionary provision was properly held to be applicable in this instance. See Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company v. Cramer, Fla.1965, 178 So.2d 581.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Little Judy Indus., Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 284 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 1973)…Certiorari denied. 280 So. 2d 14. CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur. ERVIN, J., dissents.…
-
Tamiami Elec., Inc. v. Infinity Assurance Ins. Co. (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…court final judgment in favor of respondent, Infinity Assurance Insurance Company. In its written opinion, the appellate division follows, but suggests this Court should revisit, our decision in Little Judy Industries, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Co., 280 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). There is no formal mechanism for the circuit court to certify a question to this Court,1 and our second-tier certiorari review of the appellate division’s decision is limited to whether the appellate division afforded procedural…
-
2019 156 AP 01_Tamiami_Electrical_v._Infinity_Assurance_cd18683d (11th Cir. Ct. App. Div.)
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
- Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Cramer, 178 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 1965)