Exclusionary Clauses In Insurance

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

• PowerSports, Inc. v. Royal & Sunalliance Ins.
  307 F. Supp. 2d 1355· S.D. Fla.· 2004-02-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Insured v. Insured exclusion in the D&O policy barred coverage for the entire underlying action because insured persons were plaintiffs from the inception of the lawsuit.
• DeLuna v. Valiant Ins.
  792 F. Supp. 790· M.D. Fla.· 1992-06-08 ·cited 2×
  A plaintiff is not entitled to uninsured motorist benefits if they are not covered under the policy's general liability provisions for the specific accident at issue, and the statutory notice requirement for UM limitations is irrelevant if the plaintiff is not entitled to notice
• Town OF S. Whitley v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.
  921 F.2d 104· 7th Cir.· 1990-12-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the actions of a town board are legally indistinguishable from the actions of the town itself for insurance coverage purposes.
• Portland Fed. Emps. Credit Union v. Cumis Ins. Soc'y, Inc.
  894 F.2d 1101· 9th Cir.· 1990-01-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that losses from loans, when facilitated by checks or mortgages, and certain intangible losses related to building contracts, could be covered under the fidelity bond's definitions of 'securities' and 'property,' reversing the district court's grant of summary judg
• Kloster Co., Inc. v. Mich. Mut. Ins. Co.
  882 F.2d 1308· 8th Cir.· 1989-08-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the exclusionary clause in the insurance policy was not ambiguous as a matter of law and that the jury instructions accurately reflected the policy's intent and crane operation principles.
• Sonoco Bldgs., Inc. v. Am. Home Assurance Co.
  877 F.2d 1350· 7th Cir.· 1989-06-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the loss of the panels was covered by the insurance policy, but penalties for delay were not. The court also found that the insurer received timely notice of the loss.
• The N. Assurance Co. OF Am. v. Carr
  860 F.2d 934· 9th Cir.· 1988-11-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the policy's exclusion of liability coverage for bodily injury to a family member also excludes coverage for the death of a family member, as the exclusion was sufficiently conspicuous.
• Flexi-Van Leasing, Inc. v. AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co.
  822 F.2d 854· 9th Cir.· 1987-07-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the judgment creditors could not reach the lessor's insurance policy because the lessees and their employee were excluded from coverage under the policy's non-owned automobile and trailer provisions.
• van Hook v. AETNA Life & Cas.
  728 F.2d 333· 6th Cir.· 1984-02-24 ·cited 2×
  The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no clear error in the factual determinations regarding the cause of death.
• OLD Republic Ins. Co. v. Jude P. Sheridan and Sandra J. Sheridan
  407 So. 2d 619· Fla. 4th DCA· 1981-11-04 ·cited 2×
  A general contractor's liability insurance policy provides coverage for property damage caused by negligently performed work, specifically excluding damage to the work itself but not resulting third-party property damage.
• Riverside Ins. Co. OF Am. v. Smith
  628 F.2d 1002· 7th Cir.· 1980-08-18 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting judge would hold that the trial court erred in ruling that the insurance policy's definition of 'insured' did not include apparent authority, and that the evidence was sufficient to allow a jury to find apparent authority.
• Ayres v. The Prudential Ins. Co. OF Am.
  602 F.2d 1309· 9th Cir.· 1979-05-23 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting judge believes the district court properly interpreted the insurance contract's exclusion clause as ambiguous, and therefore coverage should be afforded to the plaintiff.
• Nat'l Hills Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
  551 F.2d 655· 5th Cir.· 1977-05-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the liability of National Hills arose from its business of operating a shopping center, not from the business of the named insured (a department store), and therefore was not a covered peril under the insurance policy.
• Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. Otha H. Baughn and Louise Baughn
  257 So. 2d 903· Fla. 1st DCA· 1972-02-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the go-carts stolen from the insured premises were covered under the homeowner's insurance policy as unscheduled personal property, despite the exclusion for motorized vehicles.
• Ruff v. ST. Paul Mercury Ins. Co.
  393 F.2d 500· 2d Cir.· 1968-04-25 ·cited 2×
  An insurance policy exclusion for endemic diseases applies even if the policy generally references state workers' compensation law for benefit calculations.
• The Commercial Travelers Mut. Accident Ass'n v. Kilgore
  201 So. 2d 486· Fla. 2d DCA· 1967-07-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because whether the insured's osteoarthritis constituted a 'disease' or 'infirmity' under the policy, as defined by common speech, was a question of fact for the jury.
• Paul v. Finegan
  329 F.2d 231· D.C. Cir.· 1963-11-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the insurance policy did not cover farm employee liability, and the claims for reformation and negligence were barred by laches and the statute of limitations, respectively.
• Portaro v. Am. Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co.
  310 F.2d 897· 6th Cir.· 1962-12-28 ·cited 2×
  An insurer has no duty to defend an insured against a claim for assault and battery if the policy explicitly excludes coverage for such acts when committed by the insured.
• Ferrell v. State Auto. Ins. Ass'n OF Indianapolis
  303 F.2d 897· 7th Cir.· 1962-06-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the insurance policy in question does not apply to bodily injury to an employee of the named insured, affirming the trial court's decision.
• Jewell Gabbard Littrall and Louis Dyson v. Indem. Ins. Co. OF N. Am.
  300 F.2d 340· 7th Cir.· 1962-02-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that neither the aircraft liability policy nor the airport liability policy provided coverage for the injuries sustained in the crash of the Globe Swift aircraft, as the aircraft was not listed under the relevant endorsement of the aircraft policy and was specifica
• Newfoundland Am. Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Suesz
  289 F.2d 694· 10th Cir.· 1961-04-19 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting judge holds that the insurance policy's exclusionary clause is not rendered meaningless by the typewritten endorsement, finding no ambiguity regarding coverage while the circus was in winter quarters.
• Commercial Union Fire Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Bank of Ga.
  197 F.2d 455· 5th Cir.· 1952-06-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the bursting of a fire hydrant due to a water hammer constituted an explosion under the insurance policy's extended coverage, as it involved a sudden release of energy not originating within the policy's exclusions.
• Wilson v. Bus. Men's Assur. Co. of Am.
  181 F.2d 88· 9th Cir.· 1950-03-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the insurance policy's exclusionary clause clearly excepted death resulting from hernia treatment, and thus the beneficiary could not recover.
• McREYNOLDS v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co.
  122 F.2d 895· 8th Cir.· 1941-10-17 ·cited 2×
  The Missouri Suicide Statute invalidates exclusions for suicide while insane but does not create coverage for deaths otherwise excluded from an accident policy.
• Oak Ford Owners Ass'n v. Auto-Owners Ins.
  510 F. Supp. 2d 812· M.D. Fla.· 2007-02-28 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the property damage to the creek arose during the plaintiff's dredging operations, and therefore, it is excluded from coverage under Exclusion 2j(5) of the CGL policy.
• Nat'l Fire & Marine Ins. v. Adoreable Promotions, Inc.
  451 F. Supp. 2d 1301· M.D. Fla.· 2006-08-18 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the insurance policy's exclusion for bodily injury to athletic participants unambiguously bars coverage for claims arising from injuries sustained during a Toughman Contest.
• Valiant Ins. v. Evonosky
  864 F. Supp. 1189· M.D. Fla.· 1994-10-03 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the vehicle was 'available for regular use' under the policy's exclusion, thus denying uninsured motorist coverage. The court also found the statutory notice requirement inapplicable.
• Blue Bird Body Co., Inc. v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.
  583 F.2d 717· 5th Cir.· 1978-11-08 ·cited 1×
  Both insurers are primary insurers, each liable for half the settlement cost, as the accident arose out of the use of both the tractor and the trailer.
• Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Cramer
  171 So. 2d 220· Fla. 1st DCA· 1964-12-15 ·cited 1×
  The court considered whether an insurance policy's exclusion for mechanical breakdown relieved the insurer of liability for damage caused by fire, which was precipitated by a mechanical failure of a thermostat.
• Physician's Cent. Bus. Off. & Affiliates v. Underwriters at Lloyd's London
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-02-13
  The court held that the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify the plaintiffs because the claims in the underlying actions were excluded by the policy's endorsements and exclusions.
• Lewis v. Allied World Specialty Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-06-06
  The court held that the insurance policy's exclusion for intentional, fraudulent, or dishonest acts, when adjudicated, barred coverage for the insured's claims.
• Ins. Coverage Off. v. Diona Perkins-Johnson
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2021-08-19
  The Delaware Superior Court held that the State, through its PMA Policy, is obligated to provide Evans with a defense and indemnification in the underlying tort litigation. The court found that Evans was a permissive user and thus an insured under the PMA Policy, and that none of
• Deutsch v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2019-10-30
  Natalie Deutsch sought uninsured motorist benefits from her Geico auto insurance policy for injuries sustained while training in a mobile gym operated out of a parked truck. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment denying coverage, holding that the truck was located for use
• St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Rosen Millennium, Inc.
  104 La. 603· M.D. Fla.· 2018-09-28
  An insurer has no duty to defend under a commercial general liability policy for a data breach caused by third parties, as the policy's 'personal injury' provision requires the insured to be the 'publisher' of the offending material.
• OMS Nat'l Ins. v. Turbyfill
  N.D. Fla.· 2016-03-31
  The court held that the insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify the insured because the allegations in the underlying complaint fall within the policy's sexual misconduct exclusion.
• Sherman
  Del.· 2016-02-16
  The Delaware Supreme Court held that the State waived sovereign immunity because its self-insurance policy covered the alleged sexual assault by Officer Giddings, as the exclusion for intentional acts did not apply to the State as the named insured. The Court also affirmed the Su
• Alfa Mut. Ins. Co. v. Thornton
  125 So. 3d 330· Fla. 3d DCA· 2013-10-23
  The court held that the homeowners policy exclusion for bodily injury arising out of the care or custody of animals not owned by the insured was unambiguous and applicable to the accident, thus denying coverage.
• N.H. Indem. Co. v. Scott
  407 F. Supp. 2d 1142· M.D. Fla.· 2012-12-13
  The court held that the insurance policy's 'auto accident' coverage does not extend to intentional criminal acts like robbery and battery, and the exclusion for intentionally caused bodily injury applies.
• Harco Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Hammond
  63 So. 3d 27· Fla. 3d DCA· 2011-04-20
  The Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed a lower court's decision, finding that an umbrella insurance policy did not provide coverage to a lessee of a commercial vehicle. The court held that the policy language unambiguously excluded coverage for leased vehicles and th
• Sanderson v. Zurich Am. Ins.
  792 F. Supp. 2d 1291· M.D. Fla.· 2010-12-06
  The court held that the insurance policy exclusions for intellectual property infringement and unauthorized use of domain names precluded coverage for the claims brought by St. Luke's against Sanderson, and therefore the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify.
• Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bates
  840 So. 2d 349· Fla. 1st DCA· 2003-02-21
  Nationwide appealed a judgment for an insured on a commercial all-risk policy, claiming coverage was barred by an exclusion for damages from settling. The Florida appellate court affirmed coverage, holding that "settling" in the exclusion clause refers only to normal post-constru
• State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. & State Farm Gen. Ins. Co. v. Goldstein
  674 So. 2d 880· Fla. 3d DCA· 1996-05-29
  The appellate court reversed a lower court's decision, finding that the insurance policy did not cover windstorm damage to trees and shrubbery. The policy explicitly listed covered perils for trees and shrubs, and windstorm was not among them.
• Guar. Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Int'l Ins. Co.
  994 F.2d 1280· 7th Cir.· 1993-06-03
  The court held that the insurance policy covered claims for intentional interference with economic relationships and invasion of privacy, but not civil rights violations or punitive damages arising from those violations.
• Med Imaging Ctr., Inc. v. Allstate Ins.
  818 F. Supp. 333· M.D. Fla.· 1993-04-13
  The court held that the $20,000 limit for employee dishonesty coverage does not apply to the loss of income-rents coverage, as the policy did not specify a limit for that separate optional coverage.
• 20TH Century Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
  965 F.2d 747· 9th Cir.· 1992-05-27
  The court held that Liberty's liability was $100,000 because the limiting clause in the rental agreement was not conspicuous, and that Admiral's excess policy attached after Liberty's primary policy was exhausted, not after 20th Century's policy.
• Huey T. Littleton Claims, Inc. v. Emp'rs Reinsurance Corp.
  933 F.2d 337· 5th Cir.· 1991-06-17
  The court held that the errors and omissions policy's exclusion for dishonest acts precludes coverage for claims arising from an employee's embezzlement, even if the employer was also independently negligent.
• Forum Ins. Co. v. Allied Sec., Inc.
  866 F.2d 80· 3d Cir.· 1989-01-24
  The dissenting judge would hold that the insurance policy's exclusions do not apply to the claim, and therefore the insurer should be liable.
• Ill. Mut. Life & Cas. Co. v. Walker
  529 So. 2d 1196· Fla. 5th DCA· 1988-07-21
  Illinois Mutual Life and Casualty Company appeals from summary judgment requiring it to pay disability benefits under a policy issued to Walker despite a typewritten exclusion for cervical spine conditions. The court affirmed, holding that Walker's torticollis condition, though m
• Allstate Ins. Co. v. Pacheco
  851 F.2d 257· 9th Cir.· 1988-07-01
  The term 'motorized land vehicle' in the homeowners policy is not ambiguous and excludes coverage for the moped.
• Bannum, Inc. v. City of Fort Lauderdale
  535 F. Supp. 82· S.D. Fla.· 1986-12-04