Hartford Acc. and Indem. Co. v. Bennett, 94-364

Decision Date10 March 1995
Docket NumberNo. 94-364,94-364
Citation651 So.2d 806
Parties20 Fla. L. Weekly D637 HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, Appellant, v. Joe BENNETT and Dorothy Bennett, etc. et al., Appellees.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Larry J. Townsend, of Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, P.A., Orlando, for appellant.

Kimberly Sands, of Sands, White & Sands, P.A., Daytona Beach, for appellees, Joe and Dorothy H. Bennett.

F. Bradley Hassell, of Eubank, Hassell & Lewis, Daytona Beach, for appellee, Scotty's, Inc.

HARRIS, Chief Judge.

The issues in this non-final appeal concern the proper interpretation of the definition of an "insured" as that term is used in the subject policy and whether, as a matter of law, coverage is applicable to Scotty's in this case. We find no coverage and reverse.

Joe Bennett visited the Scotty's store in Deland with the intention of buying a garden shed. While at the store, he approached a demonstration model (the model was not for sale by Scotty's in the normal course of its business) of a storage building so that he could see if his tractor would fit in the shed. He opened the shed to examine the inside and as he did so, the model tipped over and struck him. Joe and Dorothy Bennett sued Scotty's, alleging that the manner in which Scotty's displayed the model created an unreasonable risk of harm that was either created or maintained by Scotty's.

Scotty's had purchased a number of storage building kits from a manufacturer, Marco Wood Products, Inc., for resale to Scotty's customers. In addition to these storage building kits, Scotty's also purchased from Marco cut-down display models of the storage buildings. These models were full-size replicas of the facade of the actual storage building. They measured ten feet wide by eight feet high but were only two feet deep. These display models were not intended to be sold by Scotty's to its customers; they were intended merely to aid in selling the storage building kits which Scotty's also purchased.

At the time of the incident in question, Marco was insured under a policy issued by Hartford. Scotty's was an additional insured under this policy but only for specified risks pursuant to the terms of a vendor's endorsement which identified "an insured" as follows:

WHO IS AN INSURED (Section II) is amended to include as an insured any person or organization (referred to below as vendor) shown in the Schedule, but only with respect to "bodily injury" or "property damage" arising out of "your products" shown in the Schedule which are distributed or sold in the regular course of the vendor's business....

Scotty's filed a third-party complaint against Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company in which it sought a declaration that Hartford was obligated both to defend and indemnify Scotty's against the claims asserted by the Bennetts. Hartford answered and asserted affirmative defenses, one of which was:

18. SCOTTY'S, INC. was not an insured under the policy with regard to models of a portable storage facility as said models were not distributed or sold in the regular course of SCOTTY'S, INC.'s business.

Hartford then filed a motion for summary judgment in which it sought a declaration that it had no duty to defend and no obligation to indemnify Scotty's. Scotty's also filed a motion for summary judgment in which it asked the court to declare that Hartford had a duty both to defend and indemnify Scotty's. The court entered summary judgment for Scotty's, declaring that Scotty's was "an insured" under the vendor's endorsement in the Hartford/Marco policy and that Hartford was obligated both to defend and indemnify Scotty's against...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Salerno v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • July 6, 2000
    ...the product did not cause the injury so that the store was not an insured under the vendor's endorsement. Hartford Acc. and Indem. Co. v. Bennett, 651 So.2d 806, 807-08 (Fla.App. 1995). ¶ 19 Salerno cites The Pep Boys v. Cigna Indemnity Insurance Co., 300 N.J.Super. 245, 692 A.2d 546 (1997)......
  • Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • June 4, 2012
    ...product before it became an "additional insured" entitled to any duty to defend. Neither are persuasive. In Hartford Accid. & Indem. Co. v. Bennett, 651 So. 2d 806 (Fla. App. 1995), the court considered an additional insured clause similar to the one in the present NW policy, which provided......
  • Hartford Fire Ins. v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins., 01-1946.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • February 6, 2002
    ...Ins. Co., 202 N.J.Super. 372, 495 A.2d 152, 155-56 (N.J.App.1985) (citations omitted); see also Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Bennett, 651 So.2d 806, 808 (Fla.App.1995); Dominick's Finer Foods, Inc. v. American Manufacturers Mutual Ins. Co., 163 Ill.App.3d 149, 114 Ill.Dec. 389, 516 ......
  • Makrigiannis v. Nintendo of America, Inc., SJC-09214 (MA 10/13/2004)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • October 13, 2004
    ...(vendor negligently assembled patio furniture for floor display and customer was injured). But see Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Bennett, 651 So. 2d 806, 807-808 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995) (coverage denied because demonstration model, which was full size replica of storage unit, was not for......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT