Frontier Ins. Co. v. Pinecrest Preparatory School Inc.
Decision Date | 19 July 1995 |
Docket Number | No. 93-2132,93-2132 |
Parties | 20 Fla. L. Weekly D1664 FRONTIER INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. PINECREST PREPARATORY SCHOOL INC., a Florida Corporation, Paul Kupfer and Rhonda Kupfer, as Parents and Natural Guardians of Cassandra Kupfer, a Minor, Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bambi G. Blum of Hicks, Anderson & Blum, P.A., Miami, for appellant.
Richard A. Sherman and Rosemary B. Wilder of Richard A. Sherman, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, and Alan L. Landsberg of Law Offices of Alan L. Landsberg, Hollywood, for Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest.
Shelley H. Leinicke of Wicker, Smith, Tutan, O'Hara, McCoy, Graham & Lane, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee Pinecrest Preparatory School, Inc.
We affirm a declaratory judgment holding that a Frontier Insurance general liability policy covers an injury to a child. The child fell from a trailer pulled by a pickup truck, which Pinecrest's day camp used as a playground ride, carrying campers through a field of sprinklers. The issue is whether policy exclusions in the general liability policy for automobile-related injuries apply.
The child's parents sued Pinecrest, alleging that camp personnel were negligent in supervising the injured camper. Hartford Insurance, Pinecrest's auto insurer, acknowledged coverage and began to defend. Frontier denied coverage and brought the instant declaratory action to resolve the coverage issue. Hartford intervened to protect its claims to equitable subrogation or contribution from Frontier if it was determined that the Frontier policy afforded coverage.
There is ambiguity in the Frontier policy. One exclusion provides, "This insurance does not apply to: ... g. Bodily injury ... arising out of the ownership, maintenance, use or entrustment to others of any ... 'auto' ... owned or operated by ... any insured." "Auto" is elsewhere defined to mean (emphasis added) Another exclusion, h. (1), provides that the insurance does not apply to an injury arising out of "[t]he transportation of 'mobile equipment' by an 'auto' owned or operated by ... any insured." "Mobile equipment" is defined to mean any of a variety of land vehicles, including the following: and (emphasis added) The term "vehicle" is not defined.
The term "auto" in an automobile liability policy is usually broadly construed so as to afford coverage. Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Novak, 453 So.2d 1116 (Fla.1984). However, a more narrow construction of that term is appropriate in construing exclusionary language in a general liability policy. See St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Thomas, 273 So.2d 117 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 282 So.2d 638 (Fla.1973). See also Smith v. General Accident Ins. Co. of America, 641 So.2d 123 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). In any event, it is clear that an exclusionary clause should be strictly and narrowly construed against the drafter. E.g., Demshar v. AAACon Auto Transp., Inc., 337 So.2d 963 (Fla.1976); General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp., Ltd. v. Kellin, 391 So.2d 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).
In this case, it is not the word "auto" standing alone that creates the difficulty in interpreting the exclusion, but the definition of "auto" within...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Westmoreland v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co.
...& Supply, Inc., 498 So.2d 646 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). He also concluded that our later decision in Frontier Insurance Co. v. Pinecrest Preparatory School, Inc., 658 So.2d 601 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), rev. den., 664 So.2d 248 (Fla.1995), does not recede from the holding in Dalrymple. Both cases, he......
-
Indiana Lumbermens v. Timberland Pallet
...to a certain territory, that is, on or next to premises owned or rented by the insured. See Frontier Insurance Co. v. Pinecrest Preparatory School, Inc., 658 So. 2d 601, 603 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995) (definition of "mobile equipment" as "vehicles maintained for use solely on or next to premises ......
-
Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am. v. Southland Lawn Care, Inc.
...25, 2013).3 To the extent that the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal held to the contrary in Frontier Ins. Co. v. Pinecrest Preparatory Sch. , 658 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), the case is factually distinguishable, and this Court disagrees with and is not bound by that holding. See......
-
Stevens v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.
...as "independent of, and unrelated to," use of the truck — was alleged as a cause of the accident. Frontier Insurance Co. v. Pinecrest Preparatory School Inc., 658 So.2d 601, 603 (Fla.App.), review denied, 664 So.2d 248 (Fla.1995); see also Westmoreland v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., 704......