Eight Corners Rule

34 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. Royal Crane, LLC
  169 So. 3d 174· Fla. 4th DCA· 2015-06-10 ·cited 28×
  Mid-Continent Casualty Company challenges a judgment requiring it to defend and indemnify Cloutier Brothers under a commercial general liability policy for liability arising from a crane accident. The court holds that the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify because the und
• Colony Ins. v. Barnes
  410 F. Supp. 2d 1137· N.D. Fla.· 2005-12-08 ·cited 2×
  The insurer has a duty to defend its insured in the underlying wrongful death action because the complaint does not allege facts that necessarily constitute assault or battery, which is excluded by the policy.
• S. Winds Constr. Corp. v. Preferred Contractors Ins. Co. Risk Retention Grp., LLC
  305 So. 3d 723· Fla. 3d DCA· 2020-05-13 ·cited 1×
  This case concerns whether an insurance company had a duty to defend its policyholder against a claim for water damage. The court found that the claim fell under a policy exclusion for work on buildings exceeding three stories, thus relieving the insurer of its duty to defend.
• Parkland Chamber of Commerce, Inc. v. Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-11-18
  An insurer has no duty to defend its insured when the underlying complaint's allegations fall within a clear and unambiguous policy exclusion, such as discrimination.
• Am. Builders Ins. Co RRG, Inc. v. Carrollton Premiere Roofing, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-02
  The court recommended granting the motion for default judgment, finding the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify the insured due to policy exclusions.
• Cnty. Hall Ins. Co., Inc. v. Rd. Band Express, Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-04-21
  The court recommended granting default judgment on the claim that the insured's failure to cooperate relieved the insurer of its obligations, but denying default judgment on the claim that no coverage existed due to policy exclusions because the underlying complaint's allegations
• Trisura Specialty Ins. Co. v. S. Fla. Lodging, LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-03-26
  The court recommended denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings because affirmative defenses raised by the defendants precluded a determination of the merits at this stage.
• Insoft v. Steadfast Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-03-17
  An insurer has no duty to defend a claim if the claim arises, in whole or in part, from sexual abuse, even if other non-sexual claims are also alleged.
• AmGuard Ins. Co. v. Bourne
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-03-03
  The court held that the insurer's claim for a declaratory judgment on its duty to defend is ripe and may proceed, but the claim for a declaratory judgment on its duty to indemnify is not ripe and is dismissed without prejudice.
• Publix Super Mkts., Inc. v. ACE Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-10-29
  Publix Super Markets sought a declaration that its 2013 insurance policies covered its defense and indemnification in over 60 opioid-related lawsuits, arguing the suits alleged damages "because of bodily injury" as required by the policies. The court denied Publix's partial summa
• Southern-Owners Ins. Co. v. Justus
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-10-23
  The court held that the counter-plaintiffs are additional insureds under the policy and the insurer has a duty to defend them in the underlying action because the allegations fall within the policy's coverage and no exclusions apply.
• RDY Store Inc v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-08-27
  The court held that the insurer's assault and battery exclusion applied, and the liquor liability policy did not cover the claim, thus granting summary judgment for the insurers.
• Genworth Fin., Inc. v. AIG Specialty Ins. Co.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2023-09-21
  The court granted Genworth's motion for partial summary judgment regarding the Claim Reserves Exclusion and the Underwriting Exclusion, finding that these exclusions do not bar coverage for the underlying actions. However, the court denied Genworth's motion as to the Premiums Exc
• Southern-Owners Ins. Co. v. Midnight Tires Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-09-19
  The court held that the garage liability policy did not cover the claims arising from the use of a vehicle owned by an officer of the insured, and thus the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify.
• Southern-Owners Ins. Co. v. Farrera
  N.D. Fla.· 2023-05-30
  The court held that the insurer has a duty to defend the executive officer against all claims in the underlying lawsuit because the invoked policy exclusions do not apply to the gross negligence claim.
• Southern-Owners Ins. Co. v. Omni Amelia Island, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-03-30
  An insurer has a duty to defend its insured when the allegations in the underlying complaint potentially bring the suit within policy coverage, and the insurer has not demonstrated that an exclusion applies to all claims.
• Southern-Owners Ins. Co. v. P&T Lawn & Tractor Serv., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-03-07
  The court held that the duty to defend claims are ripe for adjudication, but the duty to indemnify claims are not ripe until a judgment or settlement is reached in the underlying action.
• First Mercury Ins. Co. v. First Fla. Bldg. Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-01-03
  The court held that summary judgment was warranted for the defendant LLC because the insurer's duty to defend is determined by the 'eight corners' rule, and the insurer failed to establish that the exception allowing extrinsic evidence applied, as the facts regarding employment s
• Progressive Express Ins. Co. v. Tate Transp. Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-11-16
  The court held that the insurer has a duty to defend because the state court complaint includes claims alleging negligence prior to the accident, which fall outside the policy's trucking use exclusion. The duty to indemnify was not ripe for determination.
• Sec. Nat'l Ins. Co. v. The City of Miami Beach
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-10-28
  The court held that the insurance policy's additional insured endorsement requires allegations of vicarious liability to trigger a duty to defend, and the underlying complaint alleged only direct negligence against the City.
• Houston Specialty Ins. Co. v. Fenstersheib
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-09-30
  Houston Specialty Insurance Company, which issued a professional-liability insurance policy to a law firm, sought a declaration of no coverage for claims arising from an employee's embezzlement of client funds that had been placed in the firm's trust account under medical provide
• Houston Specialty Ins. Co. v. Fenstersheib
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-09-29
  Houston Specialty Insurance Company sought a declaration that it had no coverage obligation under a professional liability policy issued to a law firm whose case manager had embezzled millions of dollars from client trust accounts, which led to a lawsuit by medical providers. The
• First Mercury Ins. Co. v. First Fla. Bldg. Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-09-02
  The court held that summary judgment for the insurer on the duty to defend is not warranted because the insured's employment status is a disputed fact, and the insurer has not met its burden to show that policy exclusions apply.
• Ironshore Specialty Ins. Co. v. Conrad & Scherer, LLP
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2022-05-18
  An insurer appealed a judgment finding it had a duty to defend a law firm in a RICO lawsuit arising from the firm's prior representation in human rights litigation. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court erred by declaring all issues resolved when
• Ironshore Specialty Ins. Co. v. Conrad & Scherer, LLP
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2022-05-18
  An insurer appealed a final judgment that found it had a duty to defend its insured law firm in a RICO lawsuit. The appellate court reversed and remanded, not on the duty to defend issue, but because the lower court failed to address the insurer's remaining affirmative defenses a
• Southern-Owners Ins. Co. v. Fla. Constr. Servs., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-12-17
  The court denied the motion for reconsideration because the movant failed to present new facts, controlling law, or a need to correct manifest injustice, largely relitigating previously rejected arguments.
• Southern-Owners Ins. Co. v. Fla. Constr. Servs., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-10-29
  The court denied Southern-Owners' motion for summary judgment and granted First Mercury's motion, finding that Grady Square and Richman are additional insureds under the Southern-Owners policy.
• First Mercury Ins. Co. v. First Fla. Bldg. Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-08-13
  The court denied the motion for reconsideration because the moving party failed to present convincing facts or law to justify reversing the prior order, and the matter was premature.
• AIX Specialty Ins. Co. v. Everett
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-06-16
  The court held that the insurer has a duty to defend because the underlying complaint alleged negligence that potentially falls within the policy's coverage, and the firearms exclusion did not clearly apply based solely on the complaint's allegations.
• Accident Ins. Co., Inc. v. V&A Drywall & Stucco, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-04-09
  The court held that the insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify because the policy was not in effect during the work period and the project was excluded from coverage.
• Edison Kennedy, LLC v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-01-04
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to allege a covered cause of loss, as the policies required direct physical damage or loss, and that the virus exclusion barred coverage even if such damage were alleged.
• Southern-Owners Ins. Co. v. MAC Contractors of Fla., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-01-29
  The court held that the allegations in the underlying complaint did not constitute 'property damage' as defined by the insurance policy, thus the insurer had no duty to defend.
• Bankers Standard Ins. Co. v. Thompson
  S.D. Fla.· 2019-09-09
  A reservation of rights by an insurer does not constitute a concession of a duty to defend, and the duty to defend is determined by the allegations in the underlying complaint.
• Aix Specialty Ins. Co. v. Ashland 2 P'rs, LLC
  127 La. 1093· M.D. Fla.· 2019-04-19
  The court held that the insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify its insured because the assault and battery exclusion in the policy applies to the underlying tort action.