Amerisure Ins. Co. v. GOLD COAST MARINE DIST., INC.
| Decision Date | 01 November 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D00-145.,4D00-145. |
| Citation | 771 So.2d 579 |
| Parties | AMERISURE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. GOLD COAST MARINE DISTRIBUTORS, INC. and Donald Mains, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
771 So.2d 579
AMERISURE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant,v.
GOLD COAST MARINE DISTRIBUTORS, INC. and Donald Mains, Appellees
No. 4D00-145.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
November 1, 2000.
Kara Berard Rockenbach of Gaunt, Pratt, Radford & Methe, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Harold E. Patricoff and Michael V. Herskowitz of Shutts & Bowen LLP, Miami, for appellees.
HAZOURI, J.
Amerisure Insurance Company (Amerisure) appeals a final judgment holding that it had a duty to defend its insureds, Gold Coast Marine Distributors, Inc. (Gold Coast) and Donald Mains (Mains), as well as to afford coverage and indemnification of a claim made against them for libel and
On October 1, 1994, M.Y.D. Marine Distributors, Inc. (MYD), a distributor of paint products and a business competitor of Gold Coast, filed a lawsuit naming Gold Coast and Mains, its chief executive officer, as two of a list of defendants. The initial MYD complaint alleged: a federal civil RICO violation (Count I), a Florida civil RICO violation (Count II), a pattern of racketeering activity and damages pursuant to sections 772.101-772.19, Florida Statutes (1993), a violation of the Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act (Count III), tortious interference with an advantageous business relationship (Count IV), a federal Sherman Antitrust violation (Count V), a federal Clayton Act and Robinson-Patman Act Antitrust violation (Count VI), a violation of Florida Restraint of Trade laws (Count VII), violation of section 817.416, Florida Statutes (1993), criminalizing fraudulent business practices and providing civil remedies (Count VIII) and civil conspiracy and damages therefrom (Count IX). Thereafter, MYD twice amended its complaint. In the first amended complaint, MYD dropped the counts dealing with the federal RICO violations, the federal Sherman Antitrust violations and the federal Clayton Act and the Robinson-Patman Act Antitrust violations and retained the remaining counts that were in the initial complaint. In its second amended complaint, MYD alleged a breach of contract and a breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count I), tortious interference with a contract not terminable at will (Count II), tortious interference with an advantageous business relationship or with a contract terminable at will (Count III) and violation of the Florida Restraint of Trade laws (Count IV).
Gold Coast and Mains sought coverage under the Amerisure CGLP, under the "personal injury" and/or "advertising injury" provisions, for their defense against the allegations in the MYD complaints. Amerisure denied coverage and refused to defend the MYD suit claiming that the MYD suit did not involve a "personal injury" or "advertising injury" as defined in the policy and that the exclusion for penal statute violations excluded coverage. Gold Coast and Mains thereafter retained counsel, incurred attorney fees and costs and settled the claims with MYD for $150,000.
Gold Coast and Mains brought suit against Amerisure for breach of the Amerisure CGLP. At the conclusion of a nonjury trial, the trial court granted final judgment on behalf of Gold Coast and Mains. The trial court held that the allegations in the MYD initial complaint, first amended complaint, and second amended complaint were covered under the CGLP and, therefore, Amerisure had a duty to defend and indemnify Gold Coast and Mains. The trial court assessed damages totaling $312,810.13 which included the settlement of the suit with MYD, attorneys' fees incurred in the defense of the MYD suit, the costs incurred in the defense of the MYD suit and prejudgment interest through December 13, 1999.
The general rule is that an insurance company's duty to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Creative Hospitality Ventures v. U.S. Liability
...the cause of action in the underlying complaint pertains to a non-covered act. Id. (quoting Amerisure Ins. Co. v. Gold Coast Marine Distribs., Inc., 771 So.2d 579, 582 (Fla. 4th Dist.Ct.App.2000)). Consequently, the Court reviews the Turner and Chavoustie complaints to ascertain what they a......
-
U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Mikes
...Jones, 908 So.2d at 443; Higgins v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 894 So.2d 5, 9-10 (Fla.2004); Amerisure Ins. Co. v. Gold Coast Marine Distribs., Inc., 771 So.2d 579, 580 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2000). Generally, if the allegations in the complaint state facts that bring the injury alleged within t......
-
Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. Miami River Port Terminal, LLC
...of action against the insured, the insured's version of the facts, or the insured's defenses." Amerisure Ins. Co. v. Gold Coast Marine Distribs., Inc., 771 So.2d 579, 580–81 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) ; see also Kenneth Cole, 763 F.Supp.2d at 1334–36. The Underlying Complaint alleges that each act......
-
Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Klub Kutter's Bar & Lounge, LLC
...State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Steinberg, 393 F.3d 1226, 1230 (11th Cir. 2004) (citing Amerisure Ins. Co. v. Gold Coast Marine Distrib., Inc., 771 So. 2d 579, 580-81 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)). This holds true regardless of whether the allegations are later revealed to be false or even if they see......
-
Chapter 8
...Khatib v. Old Dominion Insurance Co., 153 So.3d 943 (Fla. App. 2014); Amerisure Insurance Co. v. Gold Coast Marine Distributors, Inc., 771 So.2d 579 (Fla. App. 2000). Illinois: Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. American Hardware Manufacturers Ass’n, 387 Ill. App.3d 85, 325 Ill. Dec. 483, 898 N.E.......
-
CHAPTER 9 Comprehensive General Liability Insurance—The Pollution Exclusions
...Khatib v. Old Dominion Insurance Co., 153 So.3d 943 (Fla. App. 2014); Amerisure Insurance Co. v. Gold Coast Marine Distributors, Inc., 771 So.2d 579 (Fla. App. 2000). Illinois: Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. American Hardware Manufacturers Ass’n, 387 Ill. App.3d 85, 325 Ill. Dec. 483, 898 N.E.......