Haenal v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. of Baltimore, Md.
| Decision Date | 18 July 1956 |
| Citation | 88 So.2d 888 |
| Parties | AL HAENAL, d/b/a A. H. Automotive Service, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY and GUARANTY COMPANY OF BALTIMORE, MARYLAND, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Robbins & Cannova and Arthur J. Franza, Hollywood, for appellant.
Fleming, O'Bryan & Fleming and Harrison D. Griffin, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
This appeal involves the interpretation of a Garage Liability Policy issued by the appellee insurance company to the appellant Haenal covering his automobile repair shop. The trial judge held that the insurance policy did not cover the loss by fire of a customer's can while it was in Haenal's shop for repairs and dismissed Haenal's complaint. Haenal has appealed.
The policy in question contains four types of coverage: Coverage A, Bodily Injury Liability; Coverage B, Property Damage Liability; Coverage C, Automobile Medical Payments; and Coverage D, Property of Others in Charge of Named Insured. Haenal was insured under Coverages A and B but not under Coverages C and D. Coverage B, which is the coverage here relied upon by Haenal as the basis for his suit, obligates the company '[t]o pay on behalf of the Insured all sums which the Insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of injury to or destruction of property, including the loss of use thereof, caused by accident and arising out of the hazards hereinafter defined.' The Coverage B 'hazard' which Haenal contends his loss arose out of is defined (in Division 2 of the 'Definition of Hazards') as
'The ownership, maintenance or use of the premises for the purpose of an automobile repair shop, service station, storage garage or public parking place, and all operations necessary or incidental thereto; and the use in connection with the above defined operations of any automobile not owned or hired by the Named Insured, a partner therein or a member of the household of any such person.'
Division 1 of the 'Definition of Hazards' is identical to the above, insofar as the premises are concerned; and, as to automobiles, it applies to 'the ownership, maintenance or use of any automobile in connection with the above defined operations, and the occasional use for other business purposes and the use for non-business purposes of any automobile owned by or in charge of the Named Insured and used principally in the above defined operations.' Division 3 of the 'Definition of Hazards' covers 'The ownership, maintenance or use of elevators at the premises.'
It is also pertinent to note that under Coverage D, the company is obligated '[t]o pay on behalf of the Insured all sums which the Insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of injury to of destruction of property of others of a kind customarily left in charge of garages, including the loss of use thereof, caused by accidental collision or upset of such property while in charge of the Named Insured in connection with his automobile dealer, repair shop, service station, storage garage or public parking place operations.'
The policy contains eight exclusions. Relevant here are the following: 'This policy does not apply * * * (f) under Coverage B, to injury to or destruction of (1) property owned by or rented to the Insured, or (2) except under division 3 of the Definition of Hazards, property in charge of or transported by the Insured, * * * (h) under coverage D, to injury or destruction caused directly or indirectly by fire or theft; or to injury to or destruction of (1) property owned by or loaned or rented to the Named Insured, or (2) automobiles being driven or transported from the factory or other wholesale distributing point to the purchaser or for storage.'
It is, of course, our duty to resolve any ambiguities in an insurance policy in favor of the insured; however, an isolated sentence of the policy should not be construed alone but 'in connection with other provisions of the policy in order to arrive at a reasonable construction to accomplish the intent and purpose of the parties.' James v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., Fla.1953, 66 So.2d 62.
As noted, the exclusion clause of the policy here in question exempts the insurance company from liability, under Coverage B, for injury to or destruction of property owned by, rented to, in charge of, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
International Erectors v. Wilhoit Steel Erectors & R. Serv.
...Co., Fla.App.1962, 139 So.2d 150." See also Jefferson Ins. Co. v. Fischer, Fla.1964, 166 So.2d 129, 130; Haenal v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., Fla.1956, 88 So.2d 888, 890; Voelker v. Combined Ins. Co. of America, Fla.1954, 73 So.2d 403, 408. Our court has also adhered to that rul......
-
International Ins. Co. v. Johns
...of the policy to arrive at a reasonable construction that accomplishes the intended purpose of the parties. Haenal v. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co., 88 So.2d 888 (Fla.1956). Because courts assume that the parties intended each provision to be relevant, courts must avoid a construction ......
-
City of Delray Beach v. Agricultural Ins. Co.
...of the policy to arrive at a reasonable construction that accomplishes the intended purpose of the parties. Haenal v. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co., 88 So.2d 888 (Fla.1956). International Ins. Co. v. Johns, 874 F.2d 1447, 1456 (11th Cir.1989); see also Reid v. State Farm Fire & Casualt......
-
Stuyvesant Ins. Co. v. Butler, 46143
...Courts may not, under the guise of contract interpretation, make a new contract for the parties. E.g., Haenal v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 88 So.2d 888, 890 (Fla.1956); General Accident Fire and Life Assur. Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 260 So.2d 249, 253 (4th Dist.Ct.App......