Exclusionary Clauses In Insurance

224 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count

• Stuyvesant Ins. Co. v. Alphonso Butler
  314 So. 2d 567· Fla.· 1975-05-21 ·cited 111×
  Stuyvesant Insurance Company sought review of a District Court decision that reversed summary judgment in favor of the insurer, holding that a 17-year-old shrimping vessel crewman was not a 'minor' within the insurance policy's exclusionary clause. The Florida Supreme Court affir
• Nat'l Indem. Co. v. Corbo
  248 So. 2d 238· Fla. 3d DCA· 1971-05-04 ·cited 83×
  This case concerns the extent of coverage under an insurance policy issued to a for-hire carrier, specifically addressing a limitation based on the distance of the insured property from the assured's address.
• Brooks v. United States Fire Ins. Co.
  832 F.2d 1358· 5th Cir.· 1987-11-05 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the insurance policy's exclusion clause unambiguously applied to the duty to defend, and therefore the insurer was not obligated to defend the insured when the underlying suit alleged only excluded acts. The court reversed the DTPA claim due to lack of evidenc
• ST. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Thomas
  273 So. 2d 117· Fla. 4th DCA· 1973-02-12 ·cited 76×
  St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company appealed a judgment requiring it to pay a homeowner's insured $119,000 in damages plus attorney's fees for a personal injury verdict that exceeded the $25,000 policy limit. The court held that St. Paul's homeowner's policy provided coverag
• Tucker v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co.
  288 So. 2d 238· Fla.· 1973-12-13 ·cited 74×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that an insured under a multi-vehicle uninsured motorist policy with separate premiums for each vehicle is entitled to 'stack' or aggregate coverage across all vehicles, and that exclusionary policy provisions attempting to limit coverage to a singl
• NEW Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. Addison
  169 So. 2d 877· Fla. 2d DCA· 1964-10-21 ·cited 73×
  New Amsterdam Casualty Company appealed a declaratory judgment holding that its manufacturers' and contractors' liability policy covered an electrical contractor's completed operations under Division 1 (Premises-Operations), even though the contractor had not purchased the option
• Int'l Ins. Co. v. Johns
  874 F.2d 1447· 11th Cir.· 1989-06-07 ·cited 60×
  The court held that a settlement payment and a reduction in contract term, arising from a shareholder derivative suit alleging corporate waste regarding executive compensation plans, constituted a 'loss' covered by the directors' and officers' liability insurance policy, and that
• Al Haenal v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co. of Baltimore
  88 So. 2d 888· Fla.· 1956-07-18 ·cited 55×
  Haenal, an auto repair shop owner, sought coverage under a Garage Liability Policy issued by US Fidelity and Guaranty Company for loss by fire of a customer's car while in his shop for repairs. The Florida Supreme Court held that the policy's exclusion clause for property "in cha
• Cloud v. Shelby Mut. Ins. Co. of Shelby
  248 So. 2d 217· Fla. 3d DCA· 1971-05-18 ·cited 54×
  The court held that an intentional act does not necessarily exclude coverage if the injury was not intentionally caused, and a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the insured's intent to cause harm.
• State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Castillo
  829 So. 2d 242· Fla. 3d DCA· 2002-08-14 ·cited 49×
  State Farm appealed a summary judgment in favor of homeowners who claimed coverage for structural damage caused by construction blasting under their homeowner's policy. The court reversed, holding that the policy's earth movement exclusion unambiguously excluded coverage for all
• Mathews v. Ranger Ins. Co.
  281 So. 2d 345· Fla.· 1973-06-13 ·cited 39×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that an aircraft liability insurance policy issued to a church organization for student pilot instruction afforded coverage for the wrongful death of a student pilot, despite ambiguous exclusionary language regarding 'crew or pilot,' because the app
• Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. OF Pa. v. Carib Aviation, Inc.
  759 F.2d 873· 11th Cir.· 1985-05-07 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the insurance policy's exclusion for loss due to conversion by a person in possession under a lease was unambiguous and applied to the facts, thus denying coverage.
• Allison v. Imperial Cas. & Indem. Co.
  222 So. 2d 254· Fla. 4th DCA· 1969-05-06 ·cited 38×
  The dissent argues that the injunction prohibiting picketing and trespassing on private property, including the parcel pickup zone, is valid under the First Amendment.
• Daleo v. Bert & Bette Bayfront 66 Marine
  273 So. 2d 113· Fla. 3d DCA· 1972-12-12 ·cited 35×
  Appellants sought recovery for personal injuries from a boat engine explosion under their marina operator's liability insurance policy. The trial court granted summary judgment for the insurer based on a policy exclusion for bodily injuries arising from watercraft operation away
• Indem. Ins. Co. OF N. Am. v. Pioneer Valley Sav. Bank
  343 F.2d 634· 8th Cir.· 1965-03-30 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in awarding judgment to the plaintiff, as the defendant's affirmative defense, based on a loan exclusion clause, was not supported by the facts presented.
• The Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. Parsons Corp.
  430 F.2d 531· 8th Cir.· 1970-08-11 ·cited 33×
  An insurer has a duty to defend an insured when the plaintiff's complaint alleges facts that potentially fall within the policy's coverage, even if other claims in the complaint are excluded. The duty to defend extends until the claim is clearly outside the policy's coverage.
• Sellers v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co.
  214 So. 2d 879· Fla. 1st DCA· 1968-10-08 ·cited 33×
  Louise Sellers appealed a summary judgment in favor of Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO) regarding uninsured motorist coverage. The court reversed, holding that an insured injured in one vehicle can recover uninsured motorist benefits from the full combined limits of
• PAN Am. World Airways, Inc. v. The AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co.
  505 F.2d 989· 2d Cir.· 1974-10-15 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the all-risk insurers failed to prove the hijacking loss fell within the policy exclusions, and therefore the loss was covered.
• ST. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Icard, Merrill, Cullis & Timm, P. A.
  196 So. 2d 219· Fla. 2d DCA· 1967-03-08 ·cited 30×
  St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company appealed a summary judgment requiring it to defend and indemnify a law firm (Icard) under a professional liability policy for a lawsuit arising from the firm's prior representation of a client. The court held that the plaintiff's complai
• Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. DU Pont
  292 F.2d 569· 5th Cir.· 1961-07-19 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the war and insurrection exclusionary clauses in the original policy were not modified by subsequent endorsements regarding hull coverage, and therefore, the loss was excluded.
• Lever Bros. Co. v. Atlas Assur. Co., Ltd.
  131 F.2d 770· 7th Cir.· 1942-11-21 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the bursting of the tank constituted an explosion covered by the insurance policies, and that the defendants bore the burden of proving any applicable exclusion.
• Mich. Millers Mut. Ins. Corp. v. Janelle R. Benfield
  140 F.3d 915· 11th Cir.· 1998-05-04 ·cited 29×
  Michigan Millers Mutual Insurance Corporation appealed the district court's exclusion of its fire causation expert's testimony under Daubert, directed verdicts against its arson and fraud defenses, and application of Florida's innocent co-insured doctrine. The Eleventh Circuit af
• Matsuo Yoshida and Chisato Yoshida v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
  240 F.2d 824· 9th Cir.· 1957-01-31 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the insured was the "owner" of the vehicle under the policy's exclusionary clause, and the insurer was not estopped from denying coverage due to its conduct regarding a prior accident claim.
• Jewell Sterling v. City OF W. Palm Beach & State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
  595 So. 2d 284· Fla. 4th DCA· 1992-03-18 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment based on a water damage exclusion when there was a material issue of fact as to whether sewage constitutes 'water' under the policy.
• Triano v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
  565 So. 2d 748· Fla. 3d DCA· 1990-07-10 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the insurance policy's exclusion for death resulting from travel or flight in an aerial navigation device is ambiguous when applied to a sports parachute, and therefore must be construed in favor of the insured.
• Siegle v. Progressive Consumers Ins. Co.
  788 So. 2d 355· Fla. 4th DCA· 2001-06-13 ·cited 25×
  This appeal concerns whether an auto insurer must compensate an insured for inherent diminution in market value after completing a quality repair of a collision-damaged vehicle. The Fourth District Court of Appeal held that an insurer who elects to repair under a collision policy
• Emp'rs' Liab. Assur. Corp. v. Youghiogheny & Ohio Coal Co.
  214 F.2d 418· 8th Cir.· 1954-07-07 ·cited 25×
  The insurer had a duty to defend the underlying action because the allegations in the complaint, even if groundless, potentially fell within the policy's coverage. The accident was not excluded by the policy's vehicle or products liability exclusions because the alleged negligenc
• Ogden Corp. v. The Travelers Indem. Co. & Am. Motorists Ins. Co.
  924 F.2d 39· 2d Cir.· 1991-01-22 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the allegations of continuous contamination did not fall within the 'sudden and accidental' exception to the pollution exclusion clause, and that notice to one insurer was untimely. Therefore, neither insurer had a duty to defend or indemnify.
• Ins. Co. OF N. Am. v. Howard
  679 F.2d 147· 9th Cir.· 1982-06-07 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the 'owned and occupied' clause in a homeowner's policy is a representation of the property's status at the time of issuance, not a condition requiring continuous occupancy, and that renting the home occasionally does not constitute a 'business' use excluded f
• Ideal Mut. Ins. Co. v. C. D. I. Constr., Inc.
  640 F.2d 654· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-25 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the aircraft liability policy coverage was suspended because the pilots lacked the required FAA type ratings for the aircraft, as stipulated by the policy terms.
• Johns v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
  337 So. 2d 830· Fla. 2d DCA· 1976-09-22 ·cited 24×
  A provision in an automobile liability policy excluding government-owned vehicles from uninsured motorist coverage is legally impermissible. Exemption from financial responsibility laws does not equate to being a self-insurer.
• Westchester Gen. Hosp., Inc. v. Evanston Ins. Co.
  48 F.4th 1298· 11th Cir.· 2022-09-16 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the insurer has a duty to defend the insured hospital because the alleged sexual assault and the hospital's administrative negligence in hiring and supervision do not fall under the policy's Professional Services Exclusion or Bodily Injury Exclusion.
• Asis Saha and Barbara A. Saha v. The AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co.
  427 So. 2d 316· Fla. 5th DCA· 1983-02-23 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the homeowner's insurance policy did not provide coverage for a child's drowning in a pond on the insured's property because the land was being used as a farm and in furtherance of a business pursuit, both of which were excluded from coverage.
• McNALLY v. Am. States Ins. Co.
  308 F.2d 438· 6th Cir.· 1962-09-28 ·cited 22×
  The majority's interpretation of the insurance policy impermissibly added coverage for which no premium was paid and which was specifically excluded.
• Md. Cas. Co. v. Rickenbaker
  146 F.2d 751· 4th Cir.· 1944-12-15 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying the insurer's motion to amend its answer to include the defense that the injured party was an employee excluded from coverage, as this denial could lead to manifest injustice.
• Mason v. Fla. Sheriffs' Self-Insurance Fund
  699 So. 2d 268· Fla. 5th DCA· 1997-08-15 ·cited 21×
  Andrea Mason appealed the dismissal of her complaint seeking indemnification from the Florida Sheriffs' Self-Insurance Fund for its failure to defend Deputy McNally in a federal civil rights action arising from alleged sexual battery. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding tha
• C. H. Heist Caribe Corp. v. Am. Home Assurance Co.
  640 F.2d 479· 3d Cir.· 1981-02-10 ·cited 21×
  The court held that ambiguities in an insurance policy, particularly regarding reporting requirements and exclusions, must be resolved against the insurer. The duty to defend is triggered by the allegations in the complaint, while the duty to indemnify may require further factual
• McLOUTH Steel Corp. v. Mesta Mach. Co.
  214 F.2d 608· 3d Cir.· 1954-06-23 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the insurance policy's exclusion for property in the care, custody, or control of the insured applied, and therefore coverage was denied.
• Prudential Ins. Co. OF Am. v. Barnes
  285 F.2d 299· 9th Cir.· 1960-12-21 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the phrase 'passenger with no duties aboard the aircraft while in flight' in an insurance policy is ambiguous and should be interpreted in favor of the insured.
• Ideal Mut. Ins. Co. v. Last Days Evangelical Ass'n, Inc.
  783 F.2d 1234· 5th Cir.· 1986-03-03 ·cited 18×
  The court held that while the insured breached the policy by failing to meet the pilot's logged flight hours requirement, the insurer must prove that this breach contributed to the loss before denying coverage.
• The Shelby Mut. Ins. Co. v. LaMARCHE
  371 So. 2d 198· Fla. 2d DCA· 1979-05-18 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the record did not conclusively show the building was a total loss, and the attorney's fees award was excessive.
• Index Fund, Inc. v. Ins. Co. OF N. Am.
  580 F.2d 1158· 2d Cir.· 1978-08-01 ·cited 18×
  The dissenting judge believes the loss suffered by Index Fund was clearly within the 'trading exclusion' of the bond and that the majority's interpretation is unwarranted.
• Hardberger AND Smylie v. Emp'rs Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. OF Wis.
  444 F.2d 1318· 10th Cir.· 1971-07-12 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the insurer had no obligation to defend or indemnify the Partners under the policy's exclusionary clause for trailers used with hired vehicles, but vacated the summary judgment for the insurer against Rabe, remanding for determination of his coverage.
• Underwriters AT Lloyd's OF London v. Cordova Airlines, Inc.
  283 F.2d 659· 9th Cir.· 1960-10-25 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the aircraft insurance policy did not cover the loss because the insured failed to obtain a required waiver to transport dynamite, and the policy exclusion for losses 'arising from' such flights applied regardless of whether the violation caused the crash.
• Bruce v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co.
  222 F.2d 642· 4th Cir.· 1955-05-10 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the insurance policy exclusion for operating an aircraft in violation of government regulations applied, even without a causal connection between the violation and the crash, because the policy terms were clear.
• The Emp'rs' Liab. Assurance Corp. v. Owens
  78 So. 2d 104· Fla.· 1955-02-04 ·cited 18×
  An employee injured while riding in his employer's truck sued the employer and garnisheed the employer's automobile liability insurance carrier. The court reversed the summary judgment against the insurer, holding that the policy's exclusion clause (d) categorically excludes cove
• Shelby Mut. Ins. Co. of Shelby v. Manchester
  376 So. 2d 266· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-10-16 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the insured's pleadings sufficiently demonstrated good faith and did not place the required jurisdictional amount in controversy, thus the federal court lacked jurisdiction.
• Luella Davis v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
  308 F.2d 709· 8th Cir.· 1962-10-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the insurance policy's exclusion for employee injuries arising out of employment unambiguously excluded coverage for the employee's death.
• Sulzbacher v. Travelers Ins. Co.
  137 F.2d 386· 8th Cir.· 1943-08-02 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the policy's exclusion for injuries sustained while in aerial navigation applied, and the rider's conditions for aviation coverage were not met.
• Neel v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of N.Y.
  131 F.2d 159· 2d Cir.· 1942-11-02 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the insured's death resulted from participation in aeronautics, which was excluded from double indemnity coverage under the policy.