Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. King
| Citation | 114 So.2d 184 |
| Decision Date | 06 August 1959 |
| Docket Number | Nos. B-58,B-62,s. B-58 |
| Parties | HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY, Petitioner, v. J. C. KING, S. D. Ingram, d/b/a Ingram Housemoving & Construction Company, Security Insurance Company of New Haven, and Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents. SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW HAVEN, Petitioner, v. J. C. KING, S. D. Ingram, d/b/a Ingram Housemoving & Construction Company, Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, and Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Isler, Welch & Jones, Panama City, for petitioner in Case No. B-58.
Ausley, Ausley & McMullen, Tallahassee, for respondent in Case No. B-58.
Ausley, Ausley & McMullen, Tallahassee, for petitioner in Case B-62.
Isler, Welch & Jones, Panama City, for respondent in Case B-62.
A petition and a cross petition have been filed seeking our review of an order of the Florida Industrial Commission holding the petitioner and cross-petitioner, both insurance carriers equally liable for the payment of workmen's compensation to a claimant. The sole question is which of these carriers is liable for these payments, unless both are liable as the Commission held. No question has been raised as to the compensability of the claimant's injuries under the Workmen's Compensation Law (Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.), which is admitted by all parties.
The factual situation is quite detailed, but, boiled down, is essentially as follows, with emphasis upon the critical dates:
The claimant was injured at 4 p. m. on August 19, 1957. The petitioner's agent had agreed with claimant's employer to provide temporary coverage extending from June 7, 1957, to June 20, 1957, to give the employer time to procure a permanent policy with another company, but the petitioner inexplicably filed with the Industrial Commission a notice and certificate of insurance showing coverage from June 7, 1957, to June 6, 1958, which notice and certificate had not been withdrawn or cancelled when the claimant was injured on August 19, 1957.
The cross-petitioner issued and filed with the Commission a workmen's compensation policy covering the employer from July 15, 1957, to July 15, 1958. Shortly before August 19, 1957, this carrier filed with the Commission a notice of cancellation of its policy as of September 18, 1957. This notice was on a printed form listing several reasons for cancellation (including 'duplicate coverage') but none of these reasons were checked; instead, under the list the carrier wrote 'Company Request'. By coincidence, at noon on August 19, 1957--four hours before the claimant was injured--an employee of the Commission, noting that duplicate coverage appeared in the Commission records, cancelled the cross-petitioner's policy effective immediately. Nevertheless, the cross-petitioner made workmen's compensation payments to the claimant from August 25, 1957, to November 23, 1957.
The deputy commissioner, who heard the evidence establishing the foregoing, held that the petitioner alone was liable to make workmen's compensation payments to the claimant. On review by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Security Ins. Co. of New Haven v. King
...was remanded with directions to the deputy to take evidence on the question of the intent of the parties. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company v. King, Fla.App., 114 So.2d 184. On remand, the deputy found that the intent of both the employer and the agents of Hartford was to enter into a c......
-
Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Rich, 37764
...intent of the parties to determine which contract controls and which of the two carriers is liable. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. King, 114 So.2d 184 (1st Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1959). Security Insurance Co. of New Haven v. King, 124 So.2d 129 (Fla.1960), illustrates the converse of the ins......