Barcelona Hotel Llc v. Nova Cas. Co.
Decision Date | 02 March 2011 |
Docket Number | No. 3D10–1934.,3D10–1934. |
Citation | 57 So.3d 228 |
Parties | BARCELONA HOTEL, LLC, Appellant,v.NOVA CASUALTY COMPANY, etc., et al., Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Arnaldo Velez, Coral Gables, for appellant.Walton Lantaff Schroeder & Carson and Jerry K. McKim and David S. Tadros, West Palm Beach, for appellees.Before GERSTEN, WELLS, and LAGOA, JJ.LAGOA, Judge.
Barcelona Hotel, LLC (“Barcelona”), the insured, appeals a final summary judgment in favor of insurer Nova Casualty Company (“Nova”). Because the trial court erred in determining that the excavator involved in the property damage claim was not a “vehicle,” and therefore not a named peril, we reverse.
In April 2002, a City of Miami Beach contractor was operating an excavator when it struck and damaged the foundation of a hotel owned by Barcelona. 1 Barcelona was insured under a named-peril building and personal property policy issued by Nova. At issue is the following policy section entitled “Causes of Loss–Basic Form”:
A. COVERED CAUSES OF LOSS
When Basic is shown in the Declarations, Covered Causes of Loss means the following:
....
6. Aircraft or Vehicles, meaning only physical contact of an aircraft, a spacecraft, a self-propelled missile, a vehicle or an object thrown up by a vehicle with the described property or with the building or structure containing the described property. This cause of loss includes loss or damage by objects falling from aircraft.
(Emphasis added). The policy does not define the term “vehicle.”
Barcelona submitted a property damage claim to Nova. In declining the claim, Nova sent Barcelona a letter stating that “the policy provides basic named peril coverage [and that] [t]he loss, as submitted, does not satisfy the criteria for the applicable perils under the policy.” Barcelona sued Nova, seeking damages for Nova's breach of the policy. Nova filed its amended answer, asserting affirmative defenses and counterclaims for declarations that the loss was not within the policy definition of “covered causes of loss” and that the property damaged was not “covered property.”
Nova filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing, inter alia, that there was no coverage because the damage from the excavator that allegedly struck the building does not fall within the definition of covered cause of loss. At the hearing, the trial court directed the parties to submit memoranda of law, addressing whether the excavator was a “vehicle” under the policy. The trial court granted summary judgment, stating that “the Motion for Final Summary Judgment is hereby granted on the basis that the Komatsu excavation machine is not a ‘vehicle’ and, therefore, not a named peril.” The trial court denied Barcelona's motion for reconsideration, entered final summary judgment in favor of Nova, and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice.
On appeal, Barcelona contends that an application of the dictionary definition of the term “vehicle” and consideration of the entire policy demonstrate that the excavator is a “vehicle” and that the damages were caused by a named peril under the policy. For the following reasons, we agree.
This Court's review of the trial court's entry of summary judgment is de novo. See Nova Cas. Co. v. Willis, 39 So.3d 434, 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), review denied, 51 So.3d 466 (Fla.2010). In addition, “a question of insurance policy interpretation, which is a question of law, [is also] subject to de novo review.” Penzer v. Transp. Ins. Co., 29 So.3d 1000, 1005 (Fla.2010)
“When the language of an insurance policy is clear and unambiguous, a court must interpret it according to its plain meaning, giving effect to the policy as it was written.” E. Fla. Hauling, Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 913 So.2d 673, 676 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); see also Nova Cas. Co., 39 So.3d at 436. The failure to define a term involving coverage does not necessarily render the term ambiguous. See Swire Pac. Holdings, Inc. v. Zurich Ins. Co., 845 So.2d 161, 166 (Fla.2003). Instead, when an insurance coverage term is not defined, the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. See State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 639 So.2d 63, 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); see also Watson v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 696 So.2d 394, 396 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).
Moreover, “in construing insurance policies, courts should read each policy as a whole, endeavoring to give every provision its full meaning and operative effect.” Auto–Owners Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 756 So.2d 29, 34 (Fla.2000) ( ); see also § 627.419(1), Fla. Stat. (2010); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. CTC Dev. Corp., 720 So.2d 1072, 1075 (Fla.1998); Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, 971 So.2d 885, 888 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).
Because the policy at issue does not define the term “vehicle,” “the first step towards discerning the plain meaning of the phrase is to ‘consult references [that are] commonly relied upon to supply the accepted meaning of [the] words.’ ” Penzer, 29 So.3d at 1005 ( ). Indeed, “[i]n construing terms appearing in insurance policies, Florida courts commonly adopt the plain meaning of words contained in legal and non-legal dictionaries.” Watson, 696 So.2d at 396 (quoting Brill v. Indianapolis Life Ins. Co., 784 F.2d 1511, 1513 (11th Cir.1986) (citation omitted)).
The plain and ordinary meaning of “vehicle” includes “a means of carrying or transporting something: conveyance: as ... a piece of mechanized equipment
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Botee v. S. Fid. Ins. Co.
...and courts may look to legal and non-legal dictionary definitions to determine such a meaning. Barcelona Hotel, LLC v. Nova Cas. Co., 57 So.3d 228, 230–31 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) ; Harrington v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 54 So.3d 999, 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) ; State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Campb......
-
Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
...full and operative effect. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 64 Cal. App. 4th 1205, 1212 (1997); Barcelona Hotel, LLC v. Nova Cas. Co., 57 So. 3d 228, 230-31 (Fla. App. 2011). Any doubt as to whether a policy includes a duty to defend should be resolved against the insurer. Horace ......
-
Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. Tactic Sec. Enforcement, Inc.
...1072, 1076 (Fla. 1998). Instead, undefined terms "should be given [their] plain and ordinary meaning." Barcelona Hotel, LLC v. Nova Cas. Co., 57 So. 3d 228, 230-31 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). Exclusionary clauses in insurance policies are strictly construed against the insurer. Westmoreland v. Lumb......
-
State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Valenti
...Florida courts commonly adopt the plain meaning of words contained in legal and non-legal dictionaries." Barcelona Hotel, LLC v. Nova Cas. Co. , 57 So. 3d 228, 231 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Macedo , 228 So. 3d 1111, ......
-
CHAPTER 3 The Insurance Contract
...Co., 29 So.3d 1000 (Fla. 2010); Garcia v. Federal Insurance Co., 969 So.2d 288 (Fla. 2007); Barcelona Hotel, L.L.C. v. Nova Casualty Co., 57 So.3d 228 (Fla. App. 2011). Georgia: State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Bauman, 313 Ga. App. 771, 723 S.E.2d 1 (2012); Banks v. Brotherhood Mutual In......
-
Chapter 3
...Co., 29 So.3d 1000 (Fla. 2010); Garcia v. Federal Insurance Co., 969 So.2d 288 (Fla. 2007); Barcelona Hotel, L.L.C. v. Nova Casualty Co., 57 So.3d 228 (Fla. App. 2011). Georgia: State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Bauman, 313 Ga. App. 771, 723 S.E.2d 1 (2012); Banks v. Brotherhood Mutual In......