Hartnett v. Southern Ins. Co., 34248
| Decision Date | 15 December 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 34248,34248 |
| Citation | 181 So.2d 524 |
| Parties | James HARTNETT and Blanche Hartnett, Petitioners, v. SOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Ernest Ridarsick, Miami, and Broad & Cassel, Miami Beach, for petitioners.
Dean, Adams & Fischer, Miami, for respondent.
After finding that the insured paid premiums for coverage under Coverge 'A' of his policy of insurance on his automobile, reading as follows:
but did not pay for premiums for Coverage 'D' thereof, reading as follows:
'Coverage D--Theft (Broad Form): To pay for loss of or damage to the automobile, hereinafter called loss, caused by theft, larceny, robbery or pilferage.'
the District Court of Appeal, Third District, held 1 that '* * * from the face of the policy of insurance, it affirmatively appears that the appellant did not purchase or pay premiums for such coverage [theft].' Such holding is in direct conflict with Firemans Fund Insurance Co. of San Francisco v. Boyd, 45 So.2d 499, where this Court, at page 501, said:
"* * * In our opinion, where the word 'theft' is used in an insurance policy, without definition, it should be interpreted as liberally as possible to protect the insured.'
'This court is committed to the rule that a contract of insurance prepared and phrased by the insurer is to be construed liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer, where the meaning of the language used is doubtful, uncertain or ambiguous.'
The first page of the policy of insurance out of which this suit arises 2 reads as follows:
AUTOMOBILE POLICY
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Insurance Company
DECLARATIONS A Capital
Stock
Company
No. CA 85 20 31 DALLAS
TEXAS
--Renewal of
Numbers--
Item 1. Name of Insured and Address: (No., Street, Town
County, State)
JAMES HARTNETT
380 Pine Court
Miami Springs, Fla
Item 2. Policy Period: (Mo
Day Yr)
From 11/14/62 to 11/14/65 ( 36 Months)
12:01 A.M., standard time at the address of the insured as
stated herein.
Garage: The automobile will be principally garaged in the above town or city,
county and state, unless otherwise stated herein:*
Occupation of the insured is (If Married Woman, Give Husband's Occupation or
Business)
Fork Left Opt. Gorge Steel Supply
Name and adress of employer
Item 3. The insurance affored is only with respect to such and so many of the
following coverages as are indicated by specific premium charge or charges.
Item 4. Description of the automobile and facts respecting its purchase by the
insured:
the insured is the sole owner of the automobile; (b) During the part three
years no insurer has canceled insurance, issued to the insured, similar to
that afforded hereunder:*
Countersigned:
Date: 11/27/62
At: Miami, Fla.
There is no reason why such policies cannot be phrased so that the average person can clearly understand what he is buying. And so long as these contracts are drawn in such a manner that it requires the proverbial Philadelphia lawyer to comprehend the terms embodied in it, the courts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Westmoreland v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co.
...3d DCA 1974) (clause extending insurance to insured must be construed liberally in favor of insured); see also Hartnett v. Southern Ins. Co., 181 So.2d 524, 528 (Fla.1965) ("so long as these contracts are drawn in such a manner that it requires the proverbial Philadelphia lawyer to comprehe......
-
Creative Hospitality Ventures v. U.S. Liability
...400 So.2d 526, 532 (Fla. 1st Dist. Ct.App.1981); Valdes v. Smalley, 303 So.2d 342, 344 (Fla.3d Dist. Ct.App.1974); Hartnett v. Southern Ins. Co., 181 So.2d 524, 528 (Fla.1965)). Consequently, "`when an insurer fails to define a term in a policy, ... the insurer cannot take the position that......
-
Mid–continent Cas. Co. v. Basdeo
...Auto. Assn, 400 So.2d 526, 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Valdes v. Smalley, 303 So.2d 342, 344 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Hartnett v. Southern Ins. Co., 181 So.2d 524, 528 (Fla.1965)). Consequently, “ ‘when an insurer fails to define a term in a policy, ... the insurer cannot take the position that the......
-
Evanston Ins. Co. v. Gaddis Corp.
...“are to be construed most strongly against the insurer and liberally in favor of the insured.” Id. (citing Hartnett v. Southern Ins. Co., 181 So.2d 524, 528 (Fla.1965) ). Accordingly, exclusionary clauses restricting the insured's coverage generally disfavored. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v.......