Reasonable Expectations Doctrine

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

• Fu-Kong Tzung v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
  873 F.2d 1338· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-09 ·cited 251×
  Losses caused by faulty workmanship or inherent defects in design and construction are excluded from coverage under an 'all risk' insurance policy, even if third-party negligence is a concurrent proximate cause.
• Deni Assocs. OF Fla., Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co.
  711 So. 2d 1135· Fla.· 1998-01-29 ·cited 172×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that absolute pollution exclusion clauses in comprehensive general liability (CGL) insurance policies are clear and unambiguous, precluding coverage for pollution-related claims regardless of the insured's reasonable expectations. The Court declined
• QBE Ins. Corp. v. Chalfonte Condo. Apt. Ass'n, Inc.
  94 So. 3d 541· Fla.· 2012-05-31 ·cited 72×
  The Florida Supreme Court answered certified questions from the Eleventh Circuit regarding insurance claim disputes. The Court held that first-party claims for breach of implied warranty of good faith are statutory bad-faith claims under Florida law, that no private cause of acti
• State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Deni Assocs. OF Fla., Inc.
  678 So. 2d 397· Fla. 4th DCA· 1996-07-17 ·cited 53×
  Two consolidated appeals challenging insurance carriers' denials of coverage under comprehensive general liability (CGL) pollution exclusions. The court holds that the pollution exclusion clauses are unambiguous and clearly exclude all bodily injury claims arising from pollution,
• Westmoreland v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co.
  704 So. 2d 176· Fla. 4th DCA· 1997-12-24 ·cited 52×
  An insurance company sought a declaratory judgment denying coverage for premises liability claims arising from carbon monoxide poisoning caused by a running vehicle engine in a closed garage. The court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment, holding that because the
• State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Castillo
  829 So. 2d 242· Fla. 3d DCA· 2002-08-14 ·cited 50×
  State Farm appealed a summary judgment in favor of homeowners who claimed coverage for structural damage caused by construction blasting under their homeowner's policy. The court reversed, holding that the policy's earth movement exclusion unambiguously excluded coverage for all
• Calcasieu-Marine Nat'l Bank OF Lake Charles v. Am. Emp'rs' Ins. Co.
  533 F.2d 290· 5th Cir.· 1976-06-14 ·cited 49×
  The court held that advances made by banks pending collection of drafts constituted loans excluded by the bonds, and that one bank failed to prove it suffered a loss on stale drafts.
• van Orman v. The Am. Ins. Co.
  680 F.2d 301· 3d Cir.· 1982-06-01 ·cited 38×
  The court held that employee booklets and letters did not integrate with the pension plan document to grant employees rights to the surplus, and that the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply when a valid contract governs the parties' rights.
• Hrynkiw v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co.
  844 So. 2d 739· Fla. 5th DCA· 2003-05-09 ·cited 28×
  Allstate Floridian Insurance Company sought a declaratory judgment to deny coverage for a homeowners policy issued to the Thompsons after their minor son Lon shot Jeffrey Hrynkiw. The trial court granted Allstate's motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding coverage excluded u
• Cooper Labs., Inc. v. Int'l Surplus Lines Ins. Co.
  802 F.2d 667· 3d Cir.· 1986-10-06 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the hospital was a vendor under the policy's endorsement, but its coverage depended on whether its liability was for product defect or malpractice, and that the manufacturer was entitled to a pro rata share of recovery for defense costs.
• Eli Lilly & Co. v. Home Ins. Co.
  794 F.2d 710· D.C. Cir.· 1986-06-24 ·cited 24×
  The court held that under Indiana law, extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to construe ambiguous insurance contract terms, and coverage is triggered at any point between ingestion of DES and manifestation of disease, affirming summary judgment.
• Selected Risks Ins. Co. v. Bruno
  718 F.2d 67· 3d Cir.· 1983-09-27 ·cited 20×
  The court held that an insurer does not have a duty to explain policy exclusions to an insured when the insured's expectation of coverage for intentional criminal acts is patently unreasonable as a matter of law.
• Nile T. Deland v. OLD Republic Life Ins. Co.
  758 F.2d 1331· 9th Cir.· 1985-04-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that while the district court erred in allowing the jury to interpret the insurance policy, the appellant invited this error and therefore cannot appeal it. The court also found no abuse of discretion in admitting certain evidence.
• Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Jensen
  667 F.2d 714· 8th Cir.· 1981-12-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the jury instruction incorrectly defined 'expected' damages by equating negligence with non-expected damages, and that the doctrine of reasonable expectations, while applicable in Minnesota, was improperly submitted to the jury as a question of fact. The court
• Pollard v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.
  598 F.2d 1284· 3d Cir.· 1979-05-08 ·cited 18×
  The Federal Rules of Evidence govern the admissibility of documentary evidence in federal diversity cases, and the trial judge's limitation on admitting documents was not manifestly erroneous.
• Klaus Meckert v. Transamerica Ins. Co.
  742 F.2d 505· 9th Cir.· 1984-09-05 ·cited 16×
  The court certified a question of state law to the Idaho Supreme Court regarding the enforceability of an 'other owned vehicle' exclusion in an underinsured motorist policy, as there was no controlling precedent.
• Lyons v. Salve Regina Coll. & Sheila M. Megley, Ph.d.
  565 F.2d 200· 1st Cir.· 1977-11-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the college's grade appeals committee's recommendation was not binding on the Dean, and the District Court erred in treating it as such.
• Eli Lilly & Co. v. Home Ins. Co.
  764 F.2d 876· D.C. Cir.· 1985-06-18 ·cited 15×
• The W. Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co.
  396 F.2d 351· 8th Cir.· 1968-06-14 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the finding of insurance coverage but modified the judgment to strike the award of attorneys' fees, as they were not properly pleaded.
• Blair v. The Manhattan Life Ins. Co.
  692 F.2d 296· 3d Cir.· 1982-11-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the insurance company failed to meet the clear and convincing evidence standard required by Pennsylvania law to prove the applicant had no reasonable basis for believing he had immediate insurance coverage.
• Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Above ALL Roofing, LLC
  924 So. 2d 842· Fla. 2d DCA· 2006-01-13 ·cited 11×
  Auto-Owners Insurance Company appealed a trial court's declaratory judgment granting uninsured motorist (UM) coverage to Jacek Loskot, an employee of Above All Roofing, for injuries sustained when he was struck by an uninsured motorist while standing outside the insured van excha
• Planet Ins. Co. v. Mead Reinsurance Corp.
  789 F.2d 668· 9th Cir.· 1986-03-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the primary insurer had a duty to defend the insured even when defense costs exceeded policy limits, and that excess insurers were not required to contribute to defense costs because the settlement amount was below their exclusion threshold.
• Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Manor House, LLC
  313 So. 3d 579· Fla.· 2021-01-21 ·cited 9×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that insureds cannot recover extra-contractual, consequential damages (such as lost rental income) in first-party breach of insurance contract actions. Damages in first-party claims are limited to the amounts expressly stated in the insurance policy
• Nat'l Screen Serv. Corp. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co.
  364 F.2d 275· 2d Cir.· 1966-08-03 ·cited 9×
  The dissenting judge argues that the term 'possession' in the insurance policy's products hazard exclusion should be interpreted according to its ordinary, layman's meaning of actual physical control, not a technical legal definition.
• Chamberlain v. Allstate Ins. Co.
  931 F.2d 1361· 9th Cir.· 1991-05-03 ·cited 8×
  An insurer is not obligated to defend a suit if the claims against the insured do not present a potential for covered losses under the policy, and the insurer's delay in providing a defense was without improper cause.
• 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
• Sphinx Int'l, Inc. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins.
  226 F. Supp. 2d 1326· M.D. Fla.· 2002-09-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that George Taylor was a "duly" elected officer and director for the purposes of the insured vs. insured exclusion, and that the exclusion applied even if the suit was not collusive.
• Meester v. Iasd Health Servs. Corp.
  963 F.2d 194· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the notices of plan termination and conversion satisfied ERISA requirements and that no material ambiguity existed in the insurance contract, entitling the insurer to summary judgment.
• Potter v. Ranger Ins. Co.
  732 F.2d 742· 9th Cir.· 1984-05-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the insurance policy exclusion for operating an aircraft without a valid airworthiness certificate does not require the insured to have actual knowledge of the certificate's ineffectiveness.
• Leslie Salt Co. v. ST. Paul Mercury Ins. Co.
  637 F.2d 657· 9th Cir.· 1981-03-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the insurer's delay in reconsidering a claim denial, while potentially in bad faith, did not justify awarding damages for inflation over several years. The court also found that attorney fees awarded in excess of policy coverage were improper.
• 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.
• First Am. State Bank v. The Cont'l Ins. Co.
  897 F.2d 319· 8th Cir.· 1990-02-22 ·cited 5×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the bank's losses from fraudulent schemes were covered under the fidelity bond, settlement costs were covered, attorneys' fees for settlement negotiations were recoverable, and sanctions against counsel for discovery
• Crawford v. Ranger Ins. Co.
  653 F.2d 1248· 9th Cir.· 1981-08-17 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the insurance policy's pilot exclusionary clause was clear and unambiguous, and therefore did not cover the pilot's death in the crash. The court also found that the insurer did not waive its right to deny coverage.
• Vargas v. Ins. Co. OF N. Am.
  651 F.2d 838· 2d Cir.· 1981-06-15 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the aviation insurance policy's territorial limits could reasonably be interpreted to cover flights between covered locations, even if part of the flight path extended beyond the specified territories.
• Alton N. Gathings v. W. Am. Ins. Co.
  561 So. 2d 450· Fla. 5th DCA· 1990-05-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an uninsured motorist insurer has no contractual duty to notify policyholders before settling claims of other covered persons, even if it exhausts policy limits.
• Atkins v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co.
  801 F.2d 346· 8th Cir.· 1986-09-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the insurance policy's out-of-state coverage provision was unambiguous and did not provide for $100,000.00 in no-fault coverage, limiting recovery to the minimum required by Georgia law.
• Park-Ohio Indus., Inc. v. The Home Indem. Co.
  975 F.2d 1215· 6th Cir.· 1992-09-22 ·cited 3×
  The pollution exclusion in an insurance policy is ambiguous when applied to product liability claims involving harm from a product released into the stream of commerce, and ambiguities must be construed against the insurer.
• Gunard A. Nelson, M.D. v. Becton
  929 F.2d 1287· 8th Cir.· 1991-04-08 ·cited 3×
  The doctrine of reasonable expectations should be applied to National Flood Insurance Program policies, and summary judgment should be reversed because genuine issues of material fact exist regarding homeowners' reasonable expectations.
• Wright v. Newman
  767 F.2d 460· 8th Cir.· 1985-07-10 ·cited 3×
  An excess liability insurer is not liable when the underlying policies were cancelled prior to the loss and did not cover the driver, as the excess policy's coverage was conditioned on the maintenance and payment of the underlying policies.
• Navy Mut. AID Ass'n v. Barrs
  732 So. 2d 345· Fla. 1st DCA· 1998-11-17 ·cited 2×
  Navy Mutual Aid Association appeals a summary judgment awarding life insurance proceeds to Nancy Barrs for her former husband's suicide death. The court affirmed, holding that a 1994 insurance certificate was a continuation of a 1968 master policy, making the suicide exclusion pe
• McINTOSH v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.
  992 F.2d 251· 10th Cir.· 1993-04-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the additional insured endorsement in the liability policy covered the city for its own negligence, as the policy language was ambiguous and should be construed in favor of the insured.
• Harbor Ins. Co. v. Omni Constr., Inc.
  912 F.2d 1520· D.C. Cir.· 1990-08-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the professional services exclusion in an insurance policy unambiguously applies to engineering services performed incidental to construction work, and is not rendered ambiguous by industry custom.
• Elwood v. AID Ins. Co.
  880 F.2d 204· 9th Cir.· 1989-07-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the insurer correctly denied underinsured motorist benefits because the tortfeasor's vehicle did not meet the policy's definition of an 'underinsured motor vehicle' as its liability limits were equal to, not less than, the insured's underinsured motorist cover
• 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.
• Woodmen Accident & Life Ins. Co. v. Bryant
  784 F.2d 1052· 10th Cir.· 1986-03-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the St. Francis Boys' Home did not qualify as a 'hospital' under the insurance policy, and thus, the insurer was not liable for the expenses incurred there. The court also affirmed the dismissal of various counterclaims for fraud, bad faith, emotional distress
• Miller v. Republic Nat'l Life Ins. Co.
  714 F.2d 958· 9th Cir.· 1983-09-01 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's decision, disagreeing with the majority's interpretation of the insurance receipt.
• 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.
• State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. White
  563 F.2d 971· 9th Cir.· 1977-10-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the insurance policy expired by its own terms due to non-payment of renewal premiums, and State Farm was not obligated to provide notice of expiration or defend the insured, nor was it estopped from denying coverage.
• Bertschinger v. Nat'l Sur. Corp.
  449 F.2d 744· 9th Cir.· 1971-09-16 ·cited 2×
  An insurer has no duty to defend a suit if the facts alleged fall within a policy exclusion and the insurer reasonably ascertains no facts bringing the claim within coverage.
• King v. Markel Am. Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-11-05
  The court held that a plaintiff must plead sufficient factual content to support a claim of ambiguity in an insurance policy, and that discovery cannot be used to find a claim.