ALLIGATOR ENTERPR., INC. v. General Agent's Ins. Co., 5D99-3128.
Decision Date | 09 November 2000 |
Docket Number | No. 5D99-3128.,5D99-3128. |
Citation | 773 So.2d 94 |
Parties | ALLIGATOR ENTERPRISES, INC., etc., et al., Appellants, v. GENERAL AGENT'S INSURANCE COMPANY, etc., et al., Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Charles P. Schropp of Schropp, Buell & Elligett, P.A., Tampa, for Appellants.
Dennis J. Wall, P.A., Orlando, for Appellees.
Alligator Enterprises, Inc. (Alligator) appeals the final order entered by the trial court in this declaratory judgment action determining that General Agents Insurance Company (GAINSCO), as Alligator's general commercial liability insurance carrier, had no duty to defend Alligator against a pending personal injury lawsuit. We affirm.
GAINSCO's complaint alleged that Alligator is the named insured on a general commercial liability insurance policy issued by GAINSCO, and that the Lazich family had filed suit against Alligator, alleging that they were injured as a result of a February 13, 1997 automobile collision wherein their vehicle collided with a tractor and trailer owned by Alligator which had been negligently parked on the roadway outside of Alligator's premises by an Alligator employee. The complaint alleged that the Lazichs' lawsuit claim was pending, and that GAINSCO was in doubt about its duty to defend Alligator in the lawsuit. After conducting a hearing on GAINSCO's motion for summary judgment, and relying in part on Hagen v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 675 So.2d 963 (Fla. 5th DCA),rev. denied, 683 So.2d 483 (Fla.1996), the trial court entered a final summary judgment in favor of GAISCO finding that, under the automobile exclusion of GAINSCO's policy, there was no coverage for the underlying liability case.
The determination below revolved around the interpretation of an exclusionary clause in GAINSCO's policy, viz:
2. Exclusions.
In Hagen v. Aetna Casualty & Sur. Co., 675 So.2d 963 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), this court, in construing a similarly worded policy exclusion, held:
The term "arising out of" is broader in meaning than the term "caused by" and means "originating from", "having its origin in", "growing out of", "flowing from", "incident to", or "having a connection with" the use of the vehicle.
Id. at 964. See also United States Fire Ins. Co. v. New York Marine & General Ins. Co., 268 A.D.2d 19, 706 N.Y.S.2d 377 (Sup.Ct.2000)
(. ) Application of this case law supports the trial court's conclusion that no coverage existed for the instant collision. However, Alligator contends that these cases are inapposite because of GAINSCO's "uniquely" phrased auto...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Safer
...683 So.2d 483 (Fla.1996) (citing Nat'l Indem. Co. v. Corbo, 248 So.2d 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)); Alligator Enterprises, Inc. v. Gen. Agent's Ins. Co., 773 So.2d 94, 95 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), rev. denied, 790 So.2d 1101 (Fla.2001); Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 279 F.Supp.2d 1281, 1284 ......
-
Underwriters at Lloyd's of London v. McCaul
...alleged liability grows from its vehicle use and thus falls within the pertinent exclusion. See also Alligator Enters., Inc. v. Gen. Agent's Ins. Co., 773 So.2d 94 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), review denied, 790 So.2d 1101 (Fla.2001); Hagen v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 675 So.2d 963 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996......
-
EX PARTE STATE
...including without limitation and including but not limited to—which mean the same thing." See also Alligator Enters., Inc. v. General Agent's Ins. Co., 773 So.2d 94 (Fla.Dist.Ct. App.2000). Canon 3.C.(1) addresses a situation where a judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned—that ......
-
Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Jones
...See Am. Sur. & Cas. Co. v. Lake Jackson Pizza, Inc., 788 So.2d 1096, 1099–1100 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Alligator Enters., Inc. v. Gen. Agent's Ins. Co., 773 So.2d 94, 95 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Hagen v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 675 So.2d 963, 966 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) ( en banc ); Cesarini v. Am. Dru......