Exclusionary Clauses In Insurance

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

• Frank v. Purrelli
  698 So. 2d 618· Fla. 2d DCA· 1997-08-29 ·cited 14×
  A personal umbrella liability insurance policy that purports to cover specified intentional torts, including invasion of privacy, but also excludes coverage for intended acts and limits coverage to "accidents" is ambiguous and must be construed in favor of the insured.
• Lampliter Dinner Theater, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. & Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
  792 F.2d 1036· 11th Cir.· 1986-06-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the insurance policy's language unambiguously excluded liquor liability coverage, and therefore, the insurer had a lawful basis to deny coverage, defeating claims for breach of contract and bad faith. The court also affirmed the dismissal of fraud claims as ti
• Milliken v. The Fid. & Cas. Co. OF NEW York
  338 F.2d 35· 10th Cir.· 1964-11-10 ·cited 14×
  An insurer's duty to defend in federal court is not solely determined by the allegations of the pleadings but can arise from facts discoverable through a reasonable investigation, even if those facts contradict the pleadings.
• Freed v. The Travelers
  300 F.2d 395· 7th Cir.· 1962-02-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the plaintiff was an insured under the policy and that attorney fees and expenses incurred in related personal injury actions were recoverable as damages.
• Roth v. Md. Cas. Co.
  209 F.2d 371· 3d Cir.· 1954-01-07 ·cited 13×
  Losses resulting from an employee's unauthorized trading, even if dishonest, are excluded from coverage under a broker's blanket bond if the bond contains an exclusion for losses resulting from trading.
• AMICA Mut. Ins. Co. v. Amato
  667 So. 2d 802· Fla. 4th DCA· 1995-09-13 ·cited 12×
  A municipality that is self-insured under Florida law is not considered an "uninsured motor vehicle" under an insurance policy's uninsured motorist coverage exclusion for self-insurers.
• Playboy Enters., Inc. v. ST. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
  769 F.2d 425· 7th Cir.· 1985-07-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the exclusionary clause in the insurance policy was ambiguous and must be construed in favor of the insured, meaning the insurer breached its duty to defend. However, the court remanded the attorney's fees award for a clearer explanation from the district cour
• Coleman v. Valley Forge Ins. Co.
  432 So. 2d 1368· Fla. 2d DCA· 1983-06-15 ·cited 12×
  Coleman purchased an auto insurance policy from Valley Forge that covered liability and collision damage. When he borrowed his mother's car as a temporary substitute while his own car was being repaired, he was in an accident. Valley Forge denied collision coverage, and the court
• DOW Chem. Co. v. Royal Indem. Co.
  635 F.2d 379· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-26 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the collapse of the dome was caused by faulty workmanship of a subcontractor, which is a covered risk under the 'all risks' builder's risk policy, and not by excluded 'defective design' or 'deficiency in testing'.
• Jefferson-Pilot Fire & Cas. Co. v. Boothe
  638 F.2d 670· 4th Cir.· 1980-12-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that Jefferson-Pilot had a duty to defend Boothe, Prichard under its professional liability policy because the antitrust suit allegations arguably fell within the policy's coverage and not automatically within an exclusionary clause. However, the damages award is v
• Foremost Ins. Co. v. Sheppard
  610 F.2d 551· 8th Cir.· 1979-12-14 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the aircraft insurance policy is ambiguous due to conflicting provisions regarding student pilot instruction and exclusions, and this ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the insured, thus providing coverage for the student pilot's fatal accident.
• ST. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Armco Steel Corp. & Pullman Inc.
  490 F.2d 367· 8th Cir.· 1974-01-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the wheel was defective or unreasonably dangerous under strict liability, and that Pullman was entitled to coverage under Armco's insurance policy because its modifications did not cause the accident.
• Rosen v. Godson
  422 F.2d 1082· 5th Cir.· 1970-02-24 ·cited 12×
  The exclusionary clause in the insurance policy is not ambiguous and clearly applies to the driver's occupation, not the employer's business.
• Sw. Indem. Co. & Serv. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Nat'l Sur. Corp.
  277 F.2d 545· 5th Cir.· 1960-04-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that Service Mutual's policy covered the accident because the insured contractor exercised sufficient control over the highway, and National, having paid the settlement and defense costs, was subrogated to the insured's rights against Service Mutual.
• Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Mrs. Pearl Bush
  272 F.2d 675· 10th Cir.· 1959-12-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the insurance policy endorsement, when read in its entirety and considering the intent of the parties, did not extend coverage to a prospective purchaser driving a vehicle for demonstration purposes.
• N.Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Bennion
  158 F.2d 260· 10th Cir.· 1946-11-06 ·cited 12×
  The court should affirm the lower court's decision, construing the insurance policy's war exclusion narrowly. Ambiguous terms related to 'war' should be interpreted in favor of the insured, meaning only legally declared war is excluded.
• ST. JOE Paper Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co.
  376 F.2d 33· 5th Cir.· 1967-03-28 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the policy exclusion for knowledge of employee fraud was valid and unambiguous, even if the fraudulent act itself did not give rise to a claim under the policy.
• Certain British Underwriters AT Lloyds OF London v. JET Charter Serv., Inc.
  789 F.2d 1534· 11th Cir.· 1986-05-27 ·cited 10×
  The court should have admitted evidence supporting the estoppel defense and potentially certified the meaning of 'vehicle' to the Florida Supreme Court.
• Scarborough v. N. Assurance Co. OF Am.
  718 F.2d 130· 5th Cir.· 1983-10-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the insured's complaint alleged a negligent failure to warn, which was not excluded by the 'Products Hazard' or other exclusion clauses in the insurance policies, thus triggering the insurer's duty to defend.
• Tucker Constr. Co. v. Mich. Mut. Ins. Co.
  423 So. 2d 525· Fla. 5th DCA· 1982-12-15 ·cited 10×
  A comprehensive general liability insurance policy does not cover property damage to the insured contractor's own work, even if caused by a subcontractor's negligence.
• Compass Ins. Co. & Heggeman Realty Co., Inc. v. Vanguard Ins. Co.
  649 F.2d 331· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the pilot qualification clause in the insurance policy was an exclusion, not a representation, and barred recovery for the loss of the aircraft operated by an uncertified pilot.
• Burton v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
  533 F.2d 177· 5th Cir.· 1976-06-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the insurance policy was unambiguous and excluded damage caused by sinking into a sinkhole, thus the trial court should have directed a verdict for the defendant.
• United States v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
  499 F.2d 1355· 9th Cir.· 1974-07-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment, as the determination of whether the government was an intended third-party beneficiary and the interpretation of an exclusionary clause require further factual findings under Washington law.
• Bandy v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc.
  458 F.2d 900· 5th Cir.· 1972-04-18 ·cited 10×
  An insurer's duty to defend is determined by the allegations in the plaintiff's complaint; if those allegations unambiguously exclude coverage under the policy, the insurer is not obligated to defend.
• Commerce Nat'l Bank IN Lake Worth v. Safeco Ins. Co. OF Am.
  252 So. 2d 248· Fla. 4th DCA· 1971-07-22 ·cited 10×
• Wis. Hydro Elec. Co. v. Equitable Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
  233 F.2d 313· 8th Cir.· 1956-05-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the insurance policy did not cover the explosion loss because it occurred off the described premises and within an excluded area (service mains).
• Dixie Pine Prods. Co. v. Md. Cas. Co.
  133 F.2d 583· 5th Cir.· 1943-02-06 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court erred in directing a verdict for the insurer because the determination of whether the ruptured pipe was an interconnecting pipe or an excluded outlet pipe presented a question of fact for the jury.
• Horn v. Liberty Ins. Underwriters, Inc.
  998 F.3d 1289· 11th Cir.· 2021-06-01 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the insurance policy's invasion of privacy exclusion unambiguously barred coverage for the TCPA claims because the underlying complaint alleged an invasion of privacy, and the phrase 'arising out of' is interpreted broadly under Florida law.
• Transamerica Ins. Co. v. South
  975 F.2d 321· 7th Cir.· 1992-09-11 ·cited 9×
  The court's holding is not explicitly stated as the author is concurring and discussing the difficulty of classifying causes of action.
• The Mut. Fire v. Costa
  789 F.2d 83· 1st Cir.· 1986-04-29 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the insurance policy's passenger limit was an unambiguous exclusion, and that attorney's fees were recoverable for the insured's defense against the insurer due to the broker's negligence.
• Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Grover C. Cornwell
  191 So. 2d 435· Fla. 1st DCA· 1966-11-01 ·cited 9×
  Great American Insurance Company appeals a jury verdict finding it liable under a travel accident insurance policy for the death of the insured, Mrs. Viola M. Cornwell. The central question was whether the insured's death resulted directly and independently from an automobile acc
• Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Godur
  476 So. 2d 242· Fla. 3d DCA· 1985-09-17 ·cited 8×
  An insurer is entitled to indemnity from an employee for amounts paid on behalf of a vicariously liable insured employer when the employee is not covered by the policy for the specific accident.
• NCNB Nat'l Bank OF Fla. v. The AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co.
  477 So. 2d 579· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-07-17 ·cited 8×
  NCNB National Bank sued Aetna on a bankers blanket bond to recover losses from a check-kiting scheme involving depositor Alan Gardner. The court affirmed judgment for Aetna, holding that the uncollected funds exclusion in the bond applied to NCNB's losses and the on-premises exce
• An-Son Corp. v. Holland-America Ins. Co.
  767 F.2d 700· 10th Cir.· 1985-07-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the insurer breached its duty to defend because the exclusion for operations on 'oceans, gulfs or bays' did not apply to Lake Maracaibo, and the insured was entitled to recover attorneys fees incurred in litigating the coverage dispute under Oklahoma law.
• Sheran Porr v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
  452 So. 2d 93· Fla. 1st DCA· 1984-05-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits do not cover loss of income or earning capacity after the insured's death, but uninsured motorist coverage may apply under policies not covering the vehicle involved in the accident.
• Maudine B. Smith v. Horace Mann Ins. Co.
  713 F.2d 674· 11th Cir.· 1983-08-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the claimant's status as an employee is determined at the time the cause of action arose, not when the suit was filed, thus limiting attorney's fees to $1,000 under the policy.
• United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Rood Invs., Inc.
  410 So. 2d 1373· Fla. 5th DCA· 1982-03-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the loss of hospital linens was covered under the insurance policy because the damage was caused by the deterioration of the ironer's pads, not by the processing itself or inherent wear and tear of the linens.
• Stephens v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
  508 F.2d 1363· 5th Cir.· 1975-03-05 ·cited 8×
  An insurer's denial of liability waives its right to enforce a policy clause requiring written consent before the insured settles with a third party. Additionally, an exclusion preventing recovery for injuries sustained while occupying an owned but uninsured vehicle is invalid if
• Gilligan v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
  265 So. 2d 543· Fla. 4th DCA· 1972-08-07 ·cited 8×
  Katherine Gilligan and others appealed a summary judgment denying uninsured motorist coverage after an accident involving an uninsured motorist. The court held that while Mrs. Gilligan was entitled to coverage despite the policy's household exclusion clause, the Wells were not en
• Gullett v. ST. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
  446 F.2d 1100· 7th Cir.· 1971-07-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the jury's finding that damage was caused by falling objects or collapse of the building, rather than landslide or earth movement, was supported by the evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
• Audra L. Minyen v. Am. Home Assurance Co.
  443 F.2d 788· 10th Cir.· 1971-06-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court properly instructed the jury regarding policy exclusions for death contributed to by pre-existing conditions and correctly admitted the death certificate and excluded the deposition.
• Gen. Am. Transp. Corp. v. SUN Ins. Off., Ltd.
  369 F.2d 906· 6th Cir.· 1966-12-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that property damage resulting from negligent welding is an insured 'risk' under an all-risk policy, even if a latent defect or inherent vice contributed, unless expressly excluded.
• Ins. Co. OF N. Am. v. Atl. Nat'l Ins. Co. & Peter H. Ros
  329 F.2d 769· 4th Cir.· 1964-03-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that an insurer's filing of an SR 21 form does not estop it from asserting policy exclusions, as the form's purpose is administrative and does not alter contractual rights or extend coverage.
• Hardware Dealers Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Smart
  293 F.2d 558· 10th Cir.· 1961-07-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the jury's finding that the plaintiff's building was destroyed by windstorm, despite the presence of high water, and that the plaintiff was entitled to attorney fees under Kansas law.
• Equity OIL Co. v. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co. OF Hartford
  247 F.2d 393· 10th Cir.· 1957-07-31 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge holds that the insurance company failed to prove a blowout occurred and caused the fire.
• Great Am. Indem. Co. of N.Y. v. Saltzman
  213 F.2d 743· 8th Cir.· 1954-06-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the insured's unauthorized inspection of an aircraft, which led to accidental damage, did not constitute 'use' of the aircraft or place it in his 'care, custody, or control' under the policy's exclusionary clauses.
• Clapper v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.
  157 F.2d 76· D.C. Cir.· 1946-07-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the phrase 'an aeronautic flight' in the insurance policy exclusion does not apply to a passenger, and any ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the insured.
• Md. Cas. Co. v. Morrison
  151 F.2d 772· 10th Cir.· 1945-11-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the insurance policy's exclusion for accidents arising out of the explosion of butane gas applies, regardless of whether a hostile fire preceded the explosion.
• Category 5 Mgmt. Grp., LLC v. Companion Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.
  76 So. 3d 20· Fla. 1st DCA· 2011-11-16 ·cited 7×
  Category 5 Management Group sought insurance coverage for a negligence lawsuit arising from a motor vehicle accident in Alabama. The insurer denied coverage based on an automobile exclusion in the commercial general liability policy, but the appellate court reversed the summary j
• Watson v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.
  696 So. 2d 394· Fla. 3d DCA· 1997-06-11 ·cited 7×
  An injured airline employee sued her automobile insurance carrier for personal injury benefits after being injured by an employee shuttle bus. The court reversed summary judgment for the carrier, holding that the restricted-access employee shuttle bus does not constitute "mass tr