Housing Inv. Corp. v. Carris
| Decision Date | 29 October 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-97,80-97 |
| Citation | 389 So.2d 689 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | HOUSING INVESTMENT CORPORATION of Florida, S & H Investment and Development Corporation and Samuel Hasner for the use and benefit of Continental Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Kenneth CARRIS, Marilyn Carris, Kenneth Baker, Carris Plumbing, Inc., Southern Plumbing, Inc., and Allstate Insurance Company, Appellees. |
Robert A. Hannah of Pitts, Eubanks & Ross, P.A., Orlando, for appellants.
David J. Fuller, Orlando, for appellees, Kenneth Carris and Marilyn Carris.
Maron E. Lovell, Orlando, for appellee, Kenneth Baker.
Scott J. Johnson of Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, P.A., Orlando, for appellees, Carris Plumbing, Inc. and Allstate Ins. Co.
Appellee Carris Plumbing, Inc., as contractor, contracted to do plumbing work for appellant S & H Investment and Development Corporation, as owner. The contract provided: "Owner to carry fire, tornado, and other necessary insurance." The owner insured with Continental Insurance Company. Fire, allegedly caused by the contractor's negligence, damaged the insured property. Continental paid the loss to the owner who brought this subrogation suit for Continental's benefit against the contractor for negligent performance. From a summary judgment in favor of the contractor, the owner appeals. We affirm.
In support of its decision, the trial court cited Smith v. Ryan, 142 So.2d 139 (Fla.2d DCA 1962), a similar case but one where the contract provision was in more detail requiring the owner to not only carry insurance but to have the contractor named as a co-insured. Appellants attempt to distinguish Smith because the contract language there is not identical with the language here. We perceive no meaningful difference in the intent of the contracting parties in either case. In both cases the parties foresaw the possibility of loss by fire arising from construction work and in both cases the contract provision was for the purpose of providing protection from that risk by use of insurance.
Likewise, the trial court relied on Weems v. Nanticoke Homes Inc., 37 Md.App. 544, 378 A.2d 190 (1977), which appellants would distinguish because the contract wording, again, is not identical with the contract in this case. The Weems contract required "insurance in the proper amount to cover any and all losses ...." We construe the words "necessary insurance" in this case to mean "necessary" to protect the contracting parties from loss on account of the hazards enumerated and to be analogous to the Weems contract language requiring an amount of insurance necessary to protect the contracting parties from any and all loss.
Appellants say the trial court's disposition is inconsistent with Jackson v. Florida Weathermakers, 55 So.2d 575 (Fla.1951). In Weathermakers the contractor, Weathermakers, agreed to perform work in Jackson's store and to procure "public liability insurance." A store patron sued the contractor and store for injuries sustained as the result of a dangerous condition allegedly resulting from the contract work. A jury found the patron's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Empress Casino Joliet Corp. v. W.E. O'Neil Constr. Co.
...Stonhard, Inc., 63 F.Supp.2d 85 (D.Me.1999) ; Lloyd's Underwriters, 26 Cal.App.4th 1194, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 144 ; Housing Investment Corp. v. Carris, 389 So.2d 689 (Fla.Ct.App.1980) ; E.C. Long, Inc. v. Brennan's of Atlanta, Inc., 148 Ga.App. 796, 252 S.E.2d 642 (1979) ; Willis Realty Associate......
-
Continental Ins. Co. v. Kennerson
...to look solely to the insurance, without regard to which party was negligent, and subrogation is not allowed. Housing Investment Corp. v. Carris, 389 So.2d 689 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Smith v. Ryan, 142 So.2d 139 (Fla. 2d DCA Fairchild v. W.O. Taylor Commercial Refrigeration and Elec. Co., 403......
-
S.S.D.W. Co. v. Brisk Waterproofing Co., Inc.
...651, 98 Ill.Dec. 470, 494 N.E.2d 592; E.C. Long, Inc. v. Brennan's of Atlanta, 148 Ga.App. 796, 252 S.E.2d 642; Housing Inv. Corp. v. Carris, 389 So.2d 689 [Fla.App.1980]; see also, Insurance Co. v. Wells, 35 Ohio App.2d 173, 300 N.E.2d 460; Morsches Lbr. v. Probst, 180 Ind.App. 202, 388 N.......
-
Employers Mut. Cas. Co. v. A.C.C.T., Inc.
... ... See, e.g., Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Bituminous Cas. Corp., 851 F.2d 98, 101 (3rd Cir.1988); Tokio Marine & Fire Ins. Co. v ... 354, 762 P.2d 641, 642 (Ct.App.1988); Housing Inv. Corp. v. Carris, ... 389 So.2d 689, 689-90 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1980); ... ...