Exclusionary Clauses In Insurance

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

• Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Burton
  795 F.2d 1187· 4th Cir.· 1986-07-21
  The court held that the lawyer's acceptance of client funds for investment, within the context of an attorney-client relationship, constituted 'professional services' covered by his liability policy, and the insurer failed to prove policy exclusions for dishonest acts or willful
• The Cont'l Ins. Co. v. Highlands Ins. Co.
  793 F.2d 225· 9th Cir.· 1986-07-02
  The court held that the insurance policy exclusion for employee injuries applied, even if the employer was sued in a different capacity as a vessel owner.
• Am. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Lawyers Title Ins. Corp.
  793 F.2d 780· 6th Cir.· 1986-06-19
  A title insurance policy covers losses from statutory liens for labor or materials that gain priority over the insured's mortgage, even if the project is underfunded, unless the insured created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to those specific liens.
• United Servs. Auto. Assoc. v. Dixie Ins. Co.
  487 So. 2d 84· Fla. 5th DCA· 1986-04-17
  Florida court reversed summary judgment, holding that an insurer cannot seek pro-rata contribution for uninsured motorist coverage when the injured insured's own vehicle was excluded from coverage under a family member's policy due to a valid statutory exclusion.
• Buck v. United States Aviation Underwriters, Inc.
  763 F.2d 224· 6th Cir.· 1985-06-07
  The court should affirm the district court's decision because the policy language clearly excludes Buck from coverage as an additional insured.
• Am. States Ins. Co. v. Sw. Aircraft Leasing Inc.
  717 F.2d 1189· 8th Cir.· 1983-09-14
  The court held that the insurance policy's exclusion clause did not suspend coverage due to an expired medical certificate because the exclusion did not expressly mention this requirement.
• W. Am. Ins. Co. v. Rauch
  412 So. 2d 956· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-04-21
  The trial court correctly granted partial summary judgment for the insured, finding the loss was covered by the policy.
• Ruben v. Se. Fid. Ins. Co.
  408 So. 2d 1066· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-01-05
• CM, Inc. v. The Canadian Indem. Co.
  635 F.2d 703· 8th Cir.· 1980-12-18
• Samuel v. SUN Life Assurance Co. OF Canada
  587 F.2d 203· 5th Cir.· 1979-01-03
  The court held that the insurance policy's exclusion for death by gas or poison was unambiguous, and therefore the accidental death benefit was not payable.
• Natol Petroleum Corp. v. AETNA Ins. Co.
  466 F.2d 38· 10th Cir.· 1972-09-08
  The court held that the insurance policy's coverage for "liability imposed by law" did not include liability assumed by contract, especially when the policy explicitly excluded liability assumed under drilling contracts.
• King v. Woodward
  464 F.2d 625· 10th Cir.· 1972-07-26
  The court held that a GMC pickup truck used for hauling strawberries was not a private passenger automobile under the insurance policy's definition, and the exclusion for use in the insured's business applied.
• Louis Meyers & SON, Inc. v. Affiliated F M Ins. Co.
  424 F.2d 471· 2d Cir.· 1970-04-14
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the water damage was not covered by Lumbermens' policy.
• Hoffman v. McDANIEL
  33 Fla. Supp. 107· Santa Rosa Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1970-02-03
  Allstate Insurance Company sought summary judgment to avoid defending and indemnifying an insured in a case involving a fatal injury to Kenneth Hoffman, arguing that an exclusion clause for domestic employee injuries barred coverage. The court denied the motion, holding that Hoff
• Admiralty Yacht Storage Corp. v. The Milwaukee Ins. Co.
  415 F.2d 1108· 5th Cir.· 1969-08-26
  The court held that the trial court properly granted a directed verdict because the policy excluded coverage for breakage caused by improper installation, and the appellant presented no evidence of other covered causes.
• Kickliter v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co.
  188 So. 2d 872· Fla. 1st DCA· 1966-07-26
  Appellants sought declaratory relief to establish coverage under a liability insurance policy for damages to a repossessed vehicle they negligently destroyed. The court affirmed dismissal of the complaint, holding that the policy's exclusionary clause prohibits coverage for prope
• Will Essary v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co.
  346 F.2d 61· 6th Cir.· 1965-06-03
  A party is estopped from asserting a position in a subsequent legal action that is inconsistent with a position taken in a prior action, especially when the inconsistent position would prejudice the opposing party.
• The NEW Zealand Ins. Co. v. Lenoff
  315 F.2d 95· 9th Cir.· 1963-03-12
  The court held that the trial court's interpretation of the 'settling' exclusion in the insurance policy was incorrect under California law.
• Silvio DI Prampero v. Fid. & Cas. Co. of N.Y.
  286 F.2d 367· 3d Cir.· 1961-01-18
  The court held that the insurer was not estopped from denying coverage and that the accident was not covered by the policy because the jury's verdicts in the underlying negligence actions did not establish coverage, and the insured suffered no prejudice from the insurer's defense
• Foote Mineral Co. v. Md. Cas. Co.
  277 F.2d 452· 6th Cir.· 1960-04-22
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding the loss was not covered by the insurance policy.
• Merchs. Despatch Transp. Corp. v. Dubuque Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
  200 F.2d 348· 7th Cir.· 1952-11-20
  The court held that the insurance policy covered property located within buildings adjacent to railroad tracks, as the policy's exclusionary language specifically applied only to railroad cars, not other insured property.
• Home Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Kirkevold
  160 F.2d 938· 9th Cir.· 1947-03-26
  The court held that the insurance policy's coverage for property in storage rooms did not extend to property located on the mezzanine floor, limiting the insurer's liability.
• Commercial Standard Ins. Co. v. Blankenship
  134 F.2d 784· 6th Cir.· 1943-04-06
  The court held that the automobile liability insurance policy covered the commercial use of the vehicle because the use was not connected to the insured's stated occupation as a clerk.
• Lewis v. Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. Co. of the City of N.Y.
  100 Fla. 111· Fla.· 1930-06-30
  Joseph Lewis sued Globe & Rutgers Fire Insurance Company for coverage under a Commercial Travelers' Policy for merchandise destroyed by fire at the Tampa Bay Hotel. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's directed verdict for the insurance company, holding that the p