Butler v. Peninsular Life Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 10 November 1959 |
Docket Number | No. B-129,B-129 |
Citation | 115 So.2d 608 |
Parties | Norman BUTLER, Appellant, v. PENINSULAR LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Albert J. Datz, Jacksonville, for appellant.
Milam, LeMaistre, Ramsay & Martin, Jacksonville, for appellee.
The parties will be referred to as they appeared in the court below, where appellant was plaintiff and appellee was defendant.
Plaintiff sued defendant to recover the indemnity specified for the loss of an eye in a policy of insurance issued by defendant to plaintiff.
Defendant denied liability, asserting that plaintiff's injury was not covered by the policy because of the following exclusion:
'The agreement as to benefit under this policy, however, shall be null and void if the insured's death or other loss covered by this policy results directly or indirectly from any of the following causes, from intentional act or acts of any person or persons.'
At the conclusion of the evidence on a trial of the case, the trial court instructed a verdict and entered judgment for the defendant. Plaintiff has appealed.
For the purpose of this appeal the facts developed by the evidence, though not without conflict, may be stated as follows: One James Brooks intentionally discharged a shotgun twice, the first time aiming over the head of plaintiff without intent to injure him, the second time aiming directly at plaintiff and having a conscious intent to injure plaintiff but without a specific intent to put out plaintiff's eye. A pellet from one of these shots struck and caused the loss of plaintiff's left eye.
Without expressing any opinion as to the weight of the evidence, we find that there was, in the testimony of the plaintiff, evidence from which the jury could have found that the plaintiff's injury resulted from one of the pellets of the first shot ricocheting from a branch of a tree and striking plaintiff's eye.
An insurance policy almost identical in language with that before us was construed by the Supreme Court in the case of Golden v. Independent Life & Accident Insurance Co., 77 So.2d 841, 843 in which the court discussed the earlier case of Order of United Commercial Travelers of America v. Singletary, 111 Fla. 248, 149 So. 480, and said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. of Columbus v. Pipher
...to ... by injuries intentionally inflicted upon the insured by any other person") (emphasis added); Butler v. Peninsular Life Ins. Co., 115 So.2d 608 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1959) (policy "shall be null and void if the insured's death or other loss ... results directly or indirectly from ... inten......
-
Connecticut General Life Insurance Company v. Breslin
...as it might have, a clause excluding liability if death resulted from the intentional acts of others, as in Butler v. Peninsular Life Insurance Co., Fla.App., 115 So.2d 608; Golden v. Independent Life & Accident Insurance Co., Fla., 77 So.2d 841; and Order of United Commercial Travelers v. ......
-
George v. Stone
...contracts, and are generally accepted as valid limitations on liability. Annot., 2 A.L.R.3d 1238. See also Butler v. Peninsular Life Insurance Company, Fla.App.1959, 115 So.2d 608. However, the issue of the effect of the purported insanity of the tortfeasor on such an exclusion clause has n......
-
Francis v. National Standard Life Insurance Company
...JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Golden v. Independent Life and Accident Insurance Co., Fla.1955, 77 So.2d 841; Butler v. Peninsular Life Insurance Company, Fla.App.1959, 115 So.2d 608. ...