K-C Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Shelby Mut. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 15 July 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. AP-198,K-C,AP-198 |
| Citation | 434 So.2d 1004 |
| Parties | MANUFACTURING CO., INC., Appellant, v. SHELBY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
R. Jeremy Solomon, of Booth, Conner & Solomon, Tallahassee, for appellant.
J. Craig Knox, of Fuller & Johnson, Tallahassee, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a final summary judgment finding no coverage under a policy issued to appellant K-C Manufacturing Co. (K-C) by appellee Shelby Mutual Insurance Co. (Shelby) in a products liability suit against K-C. For the following reasons we affirm.
Veronica Dudley was injured while riding in a go-cart designed and manufactured in part by K-C. Along with her next of kin, she brought suit against K-C alleging that her injuries resulted from defects in the design and manufacture of the go-cart in that there was an opening between the engine and the passenger compartment.
Count one of the complaint was based on product liability and alleged in pertinent part:
10. The injuries sustained by VERONICA DUDLEY resulted from defects in the design and manufacture of the go-cart, existing at the time the go-cart and engine left the possession of the Defendants. The go-cart was defective and unreasonably dangerous in that:
(a) The design of the engine's recoil starter mount allowed for an opening of such size that it easily permitted the hands of ultimate users to become engaged and entrapped in the area of the recoil starter mount, thereby exposing the hands to the rapidly rotating air intake screen;
* * *
(c) The go-cart was not equipped with any device or piece which separated the passenger area from the engine area, effectively preventing the limbs of passengers from entering the area of the engine which contained dangerous moving parts, and which contained parts which were extremely hot and which were capable of producing extreme heat when coming in contact with human skin.
Count two was based on negligence and alleged in part:
13. The injuries sustained by VERONICA DUDLEY resulted from the negligent design and manufacture of the engine and go-cart existing at the time the engine and go-cart left the possession of the Defendants, and which defects were known or should have been known by the Defendants. Said negligence consisted of the following:
(a) Making or permitting the design of the engine's recoil starter mount to exist in a defective state so that it allowed for an opening of such size that it easily permitted the hands of ultimate users to become engaged and entrapped in the area of the recoil starter mount, thereby exposing the hands to the rapidly rotating air intake screen.
* * *
(c) Failing to use or equip the go-cart with a device or piece which would separate the passenger area from the engine area, thereby effectively preventing the limbs of passengers from entering the area of the engine which contained dangerous moving parts, and which contained parts which were extremely hot and which were capable of producing extreme heat when coming in contact with human skin;
(d) Failing to inspect and discover said defects; and
(e) Failing to warn Plaintiffs of said defects when Defendants knew or should have known of such defects and the dangerous condition created thereby.
Subsequent to the filing of the suit by the Dudleys, K-C filed a complaint for declaratory judgment seeking a declaration of Shelby's obligations to K-C, its insured, under the allegations of the Dudleys' complaint. The court held that the products hazard exclusion contained in the policy issued by Shelby to K-C is unambiguous and applicable in the case. Therefore, summary judgment in favor of Shelby was entered.
The products hazard exclusion referred to in the final judgment is found in an attachment to the general liability insurance policy which provides:
This endorsement forms a part of the policy to which it is attached ... It is agreed that such insurance as is afforded by the Bodily Injury Liability Coverage and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harford Mut. Ins. Co. v. Moorhead
...complaint alleged negligent mishandling of waste product, not defective condition of product itself); K-C Mfg. Co. v. Shelby Mut. Ins. Co., 434 So.2d 1004 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1983) ("Products Hazard" exclusion applicable where complaint alleged failure to warn of defective nature of go-cart); ......
-
Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Utica Mutual Ins. Co.
...to its fitness. The negligence alleged is clearly that contemplated by the exclusions. K-C Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Shelby Mutual Insurance Co., 434 So.2d 1004, 1006-07 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). See also Brewer, 147 Ariz. at 431, 710 P.2d at 1086 (negligent instructions pertaining to product i......
-
Taurus Holdings v. U.S. Fidelity
...Elec. & Gas Ins. Servs., Ltd. v. Houston Oil & Gas Co., 552 So.2d 1110, 1111 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (same); K-C Mfg. Co. v. Shelby Mut. Ins. Co., 434 So.2d 1004, 1006 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (same). 4. We recognize that the law is not unanimous. A minority of jurisdictions have held that the phrase......
-
Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Quorum Mgmt. Corp.
...or strict liability) and regardless of whether the product is defective. Id. See alsoK–C Mf g . Co. v. Shelby Mut. Ins. Co., 434 So.2d 1004, 1006 (Fla. 1st Dist.Ct.App.1983). Cf.Florida Farm Bureau v. James, 608 So.2d 931 (Fla. 4th Dist.Ct.App.1992) (the products completed operations hazard......