Innocent Co-Insured Doctrine

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

• Golden Door Jewelry Creations, Inc. v. Lloyds Underwriters Non-Marine Ass'n
  117 F.3d 1328· 11th Cir.· 1997-07-28 ·cited 38×
  Golden Door Jewelry Creations and Suisse Gold Assayer & Refinery purchased a jeweler's block insurance policy from Lloyds Underwriters covering all jewelry products and entrusted property against all risks, including theft. When Sanford Credini, the president and principal operat
• 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
• Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Ifergane
  114 So. 3d 190· Fla. 3d DCA· 2012-09-12 ·cited 22×
  Citizens Property Insurance Corporation appealed orders dismissing Alexandra Ifergane as a party, granting partial summary judgment for coverage to her husband Haim, and entering final judgment against Citizens. The court affirmed the dismissal of Alexandra but reversed the cover
• Wilburt Sales, Jr. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
  849 F.2d 1383· 11th Cir.· 1988-07-20 ·cited 18×
  The dissenting judge argues that Georgia law allows an innocent co-insured spouse to recover despite the other spouse's arson, that the policy's misrepresentation provision applies only to the application, and that the insurer waived its right to rely on the provision.
• Am. States Ins. Co. v. Borbor
  826 F.2d 888· 9th Cir.· 1987-09-01 ·cited 18×
  An innocent co-insured partner is entitled to coverage under a liability policy for losses caused by a co-partner's willful acts, even if the policy excludes coverage for willful acts, as long as the policy language does not explicitly exclude coverage for 'any' insured.
• Taisyer Kattoum and Saadia Kattoum v. NEW Hampshire Indem. Co.
  968 So. 2d 602· Fla. 2d DCA· 2007-09-28 ·cited 16×
  The Kattoums appealed a declaratory judgment denying coverage for damage caused by Mrs. Kattoum's intentional act under their NHIC auto insurance policy. The court reversed, holding that an intentional acts exclusion applying to insureds "who intentionally cause" damage does not
• Haynes v. The Hanover Ins. Cos.
  783 F.2d 136· 8th Cir.· 1986-02-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that an innocent co-insured is not barred from recovering on a fire insurance policy due to the misconduct of another co-insured, and the directed verdict was premature.
• Wilburt Sales, Jr. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
  902 F.2d 933· 11th Cir.· 1990-06-05 ·cited 10×
  A prior appellate mandate ordering a new trial does not preclude summary judgment if the requirements for summary judgment are met, but the district court erred in granting summary judgment based on prior factual determinations made under an incorrect legal standard.
• Mercantile Tr. Co. v. NEW York Underwriters Ins. Co.
  376 F.2d 502· 7th Cir.· 1967-05-04 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while the insured's fraud regarding contents vitiated the claim for contents, it did not bar recovery by the innocent trustee for the dwelling, as the policy was divisible as to claimants under Illinois law.
• Bennie Vitale v. The AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co.
  814 F.2d 1242· 8th Cir.· 1987-03-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that jury instructions allowing imputation of an agent's fraudulent proof of loss to the principals were proper under Missouri law, and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's findings.
• Golden Door Jewelry Creations v. Lloyds Underwriters
  888 F. Supp. 1150· S.D. Fla.· 1995-05-10 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the dishonest acts exclusion (Paragraph 5(A)), inventory clause (Paragraph 8(A)), and false proof of loss provision (Paragraph 21) do not preclude consignors from recovering their losses from the insurer.
• Manfrin v. Auto Owners Ins. Co.
  805 So. 2d 973· Fla. 2d DCA· 2001-11-28 ·cited 2×
  The Manfrins challenged an insurance company's denial of coverage for a fire loss on their mobile home policy, claiming the fire was accidental rather than arson by their son. The court reversed summary judgment against them, finding a genuine factual dispute existed regarding th
• Assurance Generale de France v. Cathcart
  756 So. 2d 1055· Fla. 4th DCA· 2000-04-12 ·cited 2×
  AGF appealed a judgment awarding Donna Cathcart $194,124 for loss of an insured fishing vessel, plus prejudgment and post-judgment interest totaling $325,333. The court affirmed the award for the vessel loss and prejudgment interest generally, but reversed the amount of prejudgme
• Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Mauger
  Fla. 5th DCA· 2025-06-13
  A homeowners insurance policy's Concealment or Fraud Condition using the phrase "one or more insureds" unambiguously provides joint coverage such that intentional concealment or misrepresentation by any single insured voids coverage for all insureds. The trial court erred in gran
• Amick v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
  862 F.2d 704· 8th Cir.· 1988-12-07
  An innocent co-insured cannot recover under a fire insurance policy if another insured commits fraud or misrepresentation, as such policy provisions are not against public policy.
• Smith v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins.
  564 F. Supp. 350· N.D. Fla.· 1983-05-31
  If the jury finds the plaintiff blameless for the loss, she is entitled to recover the full amount of the policy under Florida's valued policy law, even if her insurable interest is less than the policy amount.