Exclusionary Clauses In Insurance

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

• Auto Owners Ins. Co. v. Allen
  362 So. 2d 176· Fla. 2d DCA· 1978-09-15 ·cited 7×
  The court held that 'collapse' in an insurance policy means material and substantial impairment of the basic structure of a building or a part thereof, not just a flattened form or rubble.
• W. Am. Ins. Co. v. Chateau LA MER II Homeowners Ass'n, Inc.
  622 So. 2d 1105· Fla. 1st DCA· 1993-08-10 ·cited 6×
  West American Insurance Company appealed a judgment finding that its business owners policy covered collapsed balconies at a condominium complex caused by hidden decay and termite damage, despite exclusions for negligent construction and maintenance. The court reversed and remand
• Alpine State Bank v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co.
  941 F.2d 554· 7th Cir.· 1991-08-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the bank's claim was not covered by the insurance bond because the customer's actions did not constitute forgery as defined by the bond, nor did they meet the criteria for on-premises loss.
• Evanston Ins. Co. v. Fred A. Tucker & Co., Inc.
  872 F.2d 278· 9th Cir.· 1989-04-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the insurance policy unambiguously excluded claims for premiums, and that parties with an indirect interest arising from a settlement agreement lacked standing to appeal the declaratory judgment.
• Cleosta Lane and Jerlene Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co.
  472 So. 2d 823· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-07-10 ·cited 6×
  A moped is not a "motorized land vehicle" excluded from homeowner's insurance coverage, as Florida law classifies it as a bicycle for insurance purposes.
• Rowe v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co.
  375 F.2d 215· 4th Cir.· 1967-02-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that U.S.F. & G. was liable under the Brooks-Carr policy because the Rowes were not 'passengers for a charge,' but had no duty to defend the Hodges under that policy. The Hodge policy provided no coverage and no duty to defend.
• The Travelers Ins. Co. & The Travelers Indem. Co. v. Rean William McELROY, Jr.
  359 F.2d 529· 9th Cir.· 1966-03-09 ·cited 6×
  A liability insurance policy issued to a lessee with exclusive possession and control of a vehicle, who also agreed to provide insurance, is considered an owner's policy under Arizona financial responsibility laws, requiring coverage for permissive users.
• NEW Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. Ellzey
  240 F.2d 618· 5th Cir.· 1957-01-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the insurer is not liable because the injury arose from a 'products hazard' which was excluded by an endorsement to the policy.
• Am. Aviation & Gen. Ins. Co. v. Ga. Telco Credit Union
  223 F.2d 206· 5th Cir.· 1955-06-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the insurance policy's Exclusion E, which limited coverage for loans exceeding $3,500.00 to any one borrower, should be construed to limit the amount of loss payable to $3,500.00, rather than voiding coverage entirely for such loans.
• State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Smith
  198 So. 3d 852· Fla. 2d DCA· 2016-06-03 ·cited 5×
  State Farm appeals a judgment awarding Smith $150,000 in uninsured motorist benefits under a policy issued to Smith's mother. The court reversed, holding that the Motzenbecker vehicle was "insured" under the Smith policy's liability provisions when Smith drove it, and therefore d
• Epstein v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co.
  566 So. 2d 331· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-08-24 ·cited 5×
  The Epsteins appealed a summary judgment denying coverage under their homeowner's insurance policy for stolen property from a rental property they owned but never occupied. The court reversed, finding the policy's exclusion language ambiguous regarding what constitutes a "residen
• Peters Twp. Sch. Dist. v. The Hartford Accident & Indem. Co.
  833 F.2d 32· 3d Cir.· 1987-11-13 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the 'earth movement' exclusion in an 'all risk' insurance policy does not apply to damage caused by mine subsidence, as mine subsidence is a man-made phenomenon and not a natural disaster contemplated by the exclusion.
• Senco OF Fla., Inc. v. Cont'l Cas. Co.
  440 So. 2d 625· Fla. 2d DCA· 1983-11-16 ·cited 5×
  The court held that replacing a product's housing with an authorized repair part does not constitute a physical change in the form of the product, thus not triggering the exclusion in the vendor's broad form endorsement.
• Callie Allen v. AETNA Life Ins. Co.
  563 F.2d 1240· 5th Cir.· 1977-12-01 ·cited 5×
  An incontestable clause in an insurance policy does not bar the insurer from proving that a loss was not covered by the policy's terms, even if the loss resulted from a pre-existing condition.
• Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.
  513 F.2d 915· 6th Cir.· 1975-04-16 ·cited 5×
  The Trinity policy did not cover Mrs. Chittum because the car she was driving was owned by a member of her household, and the Cincinnati catastrophe policy did cover her liability in excess of the primary policy limits.
• The AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Yates
  344 F.2d 939· 5th Cir.· 1965-04-30 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the homeowners' loss due to rot caused by inadequate ventilation was an excluded risk under the 'All Risk' policy and not a compensable ensuing loss from water damage.
• Miglino v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. & Harvey Ira Stein
  174 So. 3d 479· Fla. 4th DCA· 2015-08-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plain meaning of 'physical abuse' in an insurance policy exclusion includes an intentional shooting, thus relieving the insurer of its duty to indemnify or defend.
• Verushka Valero v. Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, Inc.
  59 So. 3d 1166· Fla. 4th DCA· 2011-03-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the sexual molestation exclusion in a homeowners' policy applies to negligent supervision claims arising from sexual molestation, even if the insured did not directly commit the molestation.
• Progressive Ins. Co. v. The Est. OF Elizabeth J. Wesley
  702 So. 2d 513· Fla. 2d DCA· 1997-09-26 ·cited 4×
  Progressive Insurance appeals summary judgment in a declaratory judgment action where the trial court found the policy term "relative" ambiguous and ruled that Taylor Wesley, a minor child of divorced parents who spent every other weekend and some weekday time at his mother's hom
• Ind. Ins. Co. v. Miguelarcaina
  648 So. 2d 821· Fla. 3d DCA· 1995-01-04 ·cited 4×
  Indiana Insurance Company appeals a judgment requiring it to pay $100,000 in policy limits plus interest and attorney's fees for coverage of a lawn mower injury. The court affirmed, finding that an exclusionary endorsement was ineffective because it failed to plainly and clearly
• Beaumont Rice Mill, Inc. v. Mid-American Indem. Ins. Co.
  948 F.2d 950· 5th Cir.· 1991-12-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the insurance policy exclusion for injuries covered under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act applied, and the insurer's denial of coverage was reasonable, precluding extra-contractual damages.
• Granite State Ins. Co. v. Degerlia
  925 F.2d 189· 7th Cir.· 1991-02-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plain language of the insurance policy exclusion for 'automobile or motorcycle racing or stunting' applied to unsponsored racing, and the insurer was entitled to summary judgment.
• Mut. Fire v. Fla. Testing & Eng'g Co.
  511 So. 2d 360· Fla. 5th DCA· 1987-07-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that policy language is clear and unambiguous, and extrinsic evidence should not have been admitted.
• Allstate Ins. Co. v. Dascoli
  477 So. 2d 662· Fla. 5th DCA· 1985-10-31 ·cited 4×
  Allstate appeals a judgment confirming an arbitration award that held Dascoli was entitled to uninsured motorist coverage under his second auto policy despite being injured as a passenger in a vehicle owned by him and covered under a different Allstate policy. The court affirmed,
• Foreman v. Cont'l Cas. Co.
  770 F.2d 487· 5th Cir.· 1985-09-12 ·cited 4×
  Claims arising from bodily injury are unambiguously excluded from the insurance policy's coverage, even if the underlying act was a 'Wrongful Act'.
• Sturgis v. Fortune Ins. Co.
  475 So. 2d 1272· Fla. 2d DCA· 1985-08-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the claimant, as a resident spouse and named insured under his wife's policy, was entitled to coverage despite owning his own vehicle, as the policy and statute did not exclude him.
• Triple U Enters., Inc. v. NEW Hampshire Ins. Co.
  766 F.2d 1278· 8th Cir.· 1985-07-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the insurer had a duty to defend its insured, but remanded the case to determine the proper amount of damages awarded due to a general verdict obscuring the jury's findings on covered losses.
• Heritage Ins. Co. OF Am. v. Cilano
  433 So. 2d 1334· Fla. 4th DCA· 1983-07-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the insurance policy's exclusion for businesses engaged in selling alcoholic beverages applies, and the Host Liquor Law Liability Coverage clause does not create an ambiguity that would provide coverage.
• Sears v. Reliance Ins. Co.
  654 F.2d 494· 7th Cir.· 1981-07-21 ·cited 4×
  This case involves a dissenting opinion arguing that a claimant's right-side hernia should be considered compensable, as there was sufficient evidence that the hernia occurred immediately following an industrial accident.
• Emmco Ins. Co. v. S. Terminal & Transp. Co.
  333 So. 2d 80· Fla. 1st DCA· 1976-04-13 ·cited 4×
  Emmco Insurance appeals from a summary judgment requiring it to cover a liability claim under a P&I rider on a marine insurance policy. The court must decide whether an exclusion for losses arising from towage conflicts irreconcilably with the insuring clause. The court reverses,
• Roberts v. Carter
  316 So. 2d 640· Fla. 4th DCA· 1975-06-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a modified stock car used exclusively for racing is not an 'automobile' as defined by the insurance policy, and thus the insurer is liable for coverage. The court also affirmed the award of attorney's fees and the denial of an assumption of risk instruction.
• Aaacon Auto Transp., Inc. v. Demshar
  312 So. 2d 479· Fla. 4th DCA· 1975-04-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the exclusion for use in the 'automobile business' did not apply because the policy's definition was specific and did not include transporting automobiles, and that the Liberty Mutual policy provided primary coverage.
• Ranger Ins. Co. v. Mathews
  267 So. 2d 867· Fla. 3d DCA· 1972-10-17 ·cited 4×
  Ranger Insurance Company appealed an interlocutory order finding coverage under an aircraft liability policy for a student pilot killed in a crash. The appellate court reversed, holding that the policy's plain language clearly excluded both passengers and crew members, and the de
• Diamond Shamrock Corp. v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co.
  466 F.2d 722· 7th Cir.· 1972-08-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the insurer was liable for damages caused by an explosion, not fire, and that summaries of business records were admissible. However, the award for a deductible and attorney's fees was reversed.
• AETNA Ins. Co. v. Glens Falls Ins. Co.
  453 F.2d 687· 5th Cir.· 1972-01-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an agency relationship did not exist between the reinsurers and the underwriter who mistakenly ceded an excluded risk, as the reinsurers did not authorize or control the underwriter's actions.
• Mercantile Bank & Tr. Co. v. The W. Cas. & Sur. Co.
  415 F.2d 606· 8th Cir.· 1969-09-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the "Use of Other Automobiles" clause did not provide liability coverage for the Thunderbird because it was owned by the insured or a member of his household, and the insured had specifically cancelled liability coverage for that vehicle.
• Seaboard Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Gibbs
  392 F.2d 793· 4th Cir.· 1968-02-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the employer's truck was not a 'non-owned automobile' under the policy because it was furnished for the insured's regular use, and coverage was excluded due to its use in the insured's business or occupation.
• Great Cent. Ins. Co. v. Carlton Marble, Jr.
  369 F.2d 615· 8th Cir.· 1966-12-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the insurance policy provided coverage for the accident because the towed racing car was not being operated in a manner that triggered the exclusion clause.
• Pac. Intermountain Express Co. & Truck Ins. Exch. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
  359 F.2d 735· 7th Cir.· 1966-04-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that Pacific Express was not covered under Liberty Mutual's policy because it failed to meet the conditions for coverage as a common carrier, specifically regarding its own insurance's protection of Dohrn.
• Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Ziarno
  273 F.2d 645· 2d Cir.· 1960-01-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the insurance policy's endorsement did not clearly exclude coverage for an accident occurring while the insured was operating a government vehicle with permission and in the scope of employment.
• Baltimore GAS & Elec. Co. & Bankers Tr. Co. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co.
  269 F.2d 138· 4th Cir.· 1959-07-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the rupture of a diaphragm due to rapid oil vaporization caused by electrical arcing constituted an explosion under the insurance policies, even though the arcing itself was excluded.
• The Fid. & Cas. Co. OF NEW York v. Reece
  223 F.2d 114· 10th Cir.· 1955-05-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the endorsement to the insurance policy clearly limited coverage for non-owned automobiles used in the business of the named insured, excluding the truck owner and driver.
• Yazan Khatib v. OLD Dominion Ins. Co. & Majdi Ashchi
  153 So. 3d 943· Fla. 1st DCA· 2014-12-05 ·cited 3×
  Old Dominion Insurance Company appealed a trial court decision finding it had no duty to defend four doctors in a defamation claim. The First District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Old Dominion must defend the doctors on the defamation allegations while remanding the ind
• Frontier Ins. Co. v. Pinecrest Preparatory Sch. Inc.
  658 So. 2d 601· Fla. 4th DCA· 1995-07-19 ·cited 3×
  A general liability insurance policy covers an injury arising from the use of a trailer as a playground ride, even if an auto policy also covers the incident, because the policy's exclusions for 'auto' and 'mobile equipment' are ambiguous and must be construed against the insurer
• Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Jenkins
  642 So. 2d 1193· Fla. 5th DCA· 1994-09-30 ·cited 3×
  The court did not issue a holding as this is a dissenting opinion discussing legal uncertainty.
• Rupert Brown v. LEE Cnty. Mosquito Control Dist. & Chicago Ins. Co.
  352 So. 2d 116· Fla. 2d DCA· 1977-11-16 ·cited 3×
  Brown appeals from summary judgment denying insurance coverage for damages to his cattle caused by the Lee County Mosquito Control District's spraying operations. The court affirmed the denial of coverage under the Aircraft Hull and Liability Policy but reversed and remanded rega
• Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Kessler
  232 So. 2d 213· Fla. 3d DCA· 1970-02-24 ·cited 3×
  Liberty Mutual appeals a summary judgment finding that the Kesslers were covered under Berg's uninsured motorists insurance policy despite owning their own uninsured vehicle and not being named insureds. The court reversed, holding that the Kesslers did not qualify as "persons in
• Colony Ins. v. Suncoast Med. Clinic, LLC
  726 F. Supp. 2d 1369· M.D. Fla.· 2010-10-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the insurance policy's exclusions for medical services applied, meaning the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify the medical clinic.
• Burger King Corp. v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co.
  410 F. Supp. 2d 1249· S.D. Fla.· 2005-06-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the insurance policy did not cover intentional discrimination claims, and BKC's arguments for coverage were unpersuasive.
• Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. OF Pittsburgh v. Texpak Grp. N.V. & Papertech Corp.
  906 So. 2d 300· Fla. 3d DCA· 2005-03-16 ·cited 2×
  This concurring opinion explains that while a plain reading of the insurance policy might suggest coverage, precedent dictates that the 'all risk' policy provides unsubstantial coverage for the appellee's losses due to the application of Swire Pac. Holdings, Inc. v. Zurich Ins. C