Container Corp. of America v. Maryland Cas. Co.
| Decision Date | 06 January 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-1448,96-1448 |
| Parties | 22 Fla. L. Weekly D167 CONTAINER CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Appellant, v. MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Steven A. Werber and Tracy S. Carlin, Jacksonville, for Appellant.
Shelley H. Leinicke of Wicker, Smith, Tutan, O'Hara, McCoy, Graham & Ford, Ft. Lauderdale, for Appellee.
Southern Contractors, Inc., agreed with Container Corporation of America to install a vacuum pump on a paper machine at a plant operated by Container in Fernandina Beach. The agreement required the purchase of insurance, and Southern complied with this provision by procuring an insurance policy from Maryland Casualty Company. A subsequent endorsement to the policy added Container as an additional insured. When a Southern employee filed a negligence action against Container for injuries he sustained on the grounds of Container's plant, Maryland initiated a declaratory judgment action to settle the issue of coverage. The trial court held that the policy did not provide coverage for Container's own negligence and granted a summary judgment for Maryland. We conclude that this decision is correct and therefore affirm. The agreement between Southern and Container required Southern to "indemnify, defend, save and hold [Container] harmless from any and all costs, damages and liabilities incurred or arising as a result of the performance by [Southern] of its duties [under the agreement]." This provision makes it clear that the scope of the insurance coverage was limited to acts or omissions by Southern, not Container. The endorsement adding Container was intended to insure a risk for which Container might be vicariously liable, and it cannot be interpreted to provide coverage for Container's own negligence.
AFFIRMED.
WOLF, J., dissents with written opinion.
Container Corporation (Container) was named an additional insured under the general liability policy of Southern Contractors, Inc. (Southern). The policy contains no language which limits Container's coverage to liability assumed pursuant to the contract, nor does the policy specifically reference the contract document. The only language limiting Container's coverage is contained in the rider naming Container as an additional insured: "[I]nterest for operations at operations site by Southern Contractors, Inc." This language is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Southern-Owners Ins. Co.
...Am. Ins. Co., 654 So.2d 276 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) and Container Corp. of Am. v. Md. Cas. Co., 707 So.2d 733, 737 (Fla. 1998), quashing, 687 So.2d 273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), courts have determined that in the absence of clear policy language limiting coverage to vicarious liability, the addition......
-
Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Southern-Owners Ins. Co.
...Co., 654 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) and Container Corp. of Am. v. Md. Cas. Co., 707 So. 2d 733, 737 (Fla. 1998), quashing, 687 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), courts have determined that in the absence of clear policy language limiting coverage to vicarious liability, the additional ins......
-
Container Corp. of America v. Maryland Cas. Co.
...Contractors Council, Inc., amicus curiae. GRIMES, Senior Justice. We review the decision in Container Corporation of America v. Maryland Casualty Company, 687 So.2d 273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), which conflicts with the opinion in Florida Power & Light Co. v. Penn America Insurance Co., 654 So.2......
- Container Corp. of America, v. Maryland Cas. Co.