Griffin v. Speidel, 33920
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
| Writing for the Court | O'CONNELL; THORNAL |
| Citation | 179 So.2d 569 |
| Parties | Theima GRIFFIN, individually and Theima Griffin, as executrix of the Estate of James William Griffin, Plaintiff-Petitioner, v. Samuel SPEIDEL, d/b/a Speidel's Furniture, Defendant, Shelby Mutual Insurance Company, Garnishee-Respondent. |
| Docket Number | No. 33920,33920 |
| Decision Date | 03 November 1965 |
Page 569
v.
Samuel SPEIDEL, d/b/a Speidel's Furniture, Defendant,
Shelby Mutual Insurance Company, Garnishee-Respondent.
Page 570
Fleming, O'Bryan & Fleming and Ronald FitzGerald, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioners.
Carey, Terry, Dwyer, Austin, Cole & Stephens and L. Fred Austin, Fort Lauderdale, for respondents.
O'CONNELL, Justice.
In this petition for certiorari, the petitioner, Thelma Griffin, contends that the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, reported as Griffin v. Speidel, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 882, is in conflict with the decision of this court in National Surety Corporation v. Windham, Fla.1954, 74 So.2d 549. We find conflict between these decisions. Although, the principal conflict arises out of obiter dictum in the latter case, such is, nevertheless, adequate to invoke this court's certiorari jurisdiction. Sunad, Inc. v. City of Sarasota, Fla.1960, 122 So.2d 611; Shell v. State Road Department, Fla.1961, 135 So.2d 857.
The facts of this cause are reflected in the district court's opinion. We will not repeat them here.
The question for decision is whether the policy of automobile liability insurance written by the respondent insuror for Samuel Speidel, decedent Griffin's employer, does or does not afford Speidel coverage, or indemnification, for liability arising out of Griffin's death. More specifically, the question is whether that clause in the policy excluding coverage for the insured's employees, or employment by him, excludes coverage for injury or death of a casual or incidental employee, as distinguished from a regular employee. The trial court and the district court held that it did.
In the opinion before us for review the district court rejected Mrs. Griffin's contention that the judgment of the trial court was contrary to the decision of this court in National Surety Corp., supra, in which case, by way of obiter dictum, it was said that:
'Only regular employees as distinguished from casual or incidental employees, are within the exclusion clause of the insurance contract.'
In addition to its rejection of this statement from the National Surety Corp. case as authority because it was mere dictum, the district court also concluded that the exclusionary clause involved there was distinguishable, in that it contained no language comparable to section 2 of the clause involved...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lincoln Ins. Co. v. Home Emergency Services, Inc., No. 3D99-1806.
...Sign Co., 687 So.2d 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), review denied, 698 So.2d 543 812 So.2d 440 (Fla.1997). See generally Griffin v. Speidel, 179 So.2d 569 (Fla.1965); Greathead v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 473 So.2d 1380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Aetna Fire Underwriters Ins. v. Williams, 422 So.2d 7 (Fl......
-
Stuyvesant Ins. Co. v. Butler, No. 46143
...Casualty Co. v. Gold, 194 So.2d 272 (Fla.1967); Hartnett v. Southern Insurance Co., 181 So.2d 524 (Fla.1965); Griffin v. Speidel, 179 So.2d 569 (Fla.1965); Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. v. Cartmel, 87 Fla. 495, 100 So. 802 Page 571 (1924). See also: Pennsylvania Nat. Mut. Casualty Insurance......
-
South Carolina Ins. Co. v. Smith, 835SC635
...clauses operate to exclude an employee from coverage and that the insurer is thus relieved of liability. See, e.g., Griffin v. Speidel, 179 So.2d 569 (Fla.1965) (court did not address issue of effect of such a statute on employee exclusionary clause); Gibbs v. Insurance Co., 224 N.C. 462, 3......
-
Makris v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 72-114
...Fla.App.1969, 222 So.2d 254; General Insurance Company of America v. Reid, Fla.App.1968, 216 So.2d 41; Griffin v. Speidel, Fla.1965, 179 So.2d 569. We hold that the trial court incorrectly stated the law as established by the Supreme Court of Florida by holding that the exclusion was valid ......
-
Lincoln Ins. Co. v. Home Emergency Services, Inc., No. 3D99-1806.
...Sign Co., 687 So.2d 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), review denied, 698 So.2d 543 812 So.2d 440 (Fla.1997). See generally Griffin v. Speidel, 179 So.2d 569 (Fla.1965); Greathead v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 473 So.2d 1380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Aetna Fire Underwriters Ins. v. Williams, 422 So.2d 7 (Fl......
-
Stuyvesant Ins. Co. v. Butler, No. 46143
...Casualty Co. v. Gold, 194 So.2d 272 (Fla.1967); Hartnett v. Southern Insurance Co., 181 So.2d 524 (Fla.1965); Griffin v. Speidel, 179 So.2d 569 (Fla.1965); Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. v. Cartmel, 87 Fla. 495, 100 So. 802 Page 571 (1924). See also: Pennsylvania Nat. Mut. Casualty Insurance......
-
South Carolina Ins. Co. v. Smith, 835SC635
...clauses operate to exclude an employee from coverage and that the insurer is thus relieved of liability. See, e.g., Griffin v. Speidel, 179 So.2d 569 (Fla.1965) (court did not address issue of effect of such a statute on employee exclusionary clause); Gibbs v. Insurance Co., 224 N.C. 462, 3......
-
Makris v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 72-114
...Fla.App.1969, 222 So.2d 254; General Insurance Company of America v. Reid, Fla.App.1968, 216 So.2d 41; Griffin v. Speidel, Fla.1965, 179 So.2d 569. We hold that the trial court incorrectly stated the law as established by the Supreme Court of Florida by holding that the exclusion was valid ......