LaMarche v. Shelby Mut. Ins. Co.

Decision Date10 July 1980
Docket NumberNo. 57094,57094
Citation390 So.2d 325
PartiesPhilip J. LaMARCHE and Bette LaMarche, his wife, Petitioners, v. The SHELBY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. and Clearwater Prestige Homes, Inc., Respondents.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Jan G. Halisky, Clearwater, for petitioners.

Stephen C. Chumbris of Greene, Mann, Rowe, Stanton, Mastry & Burton, St. Petersburg, for respondents.

Chris W. Altenbernd of Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, Tampa, for Ins. Co. of North America, amicus curiae.

OVERTON, Justice.

This is a petition to review by certiorari a decision of the Second Decision Court of Appeal, reported as Shelby Mutual Insurance Co. v. LaMarche, 371 So.2d 198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). We find direct conflict with Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. United Filigree Corp., 298 So.2d 455 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 303 So.2d 334 (Fla.1974). We have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(3), as it existed prior to April 1, 1980.

This cause concerns the coverage provided to general contractors by a comprehensive liability policy, and the question which must be decided is whether this coverage includes payment for the cost of replacing defective materials and workmanship. The district court in the instant case held no coverage should be provided. We affirm.

The relevant facts in the instant case reflect that petitioners entered into a written contract for the construction of their home with Clearwater Prestige Homes, Inc. The construction contract warranted and guaranteed all workmanship and materials for a term of five years from the date of delivery with regard to the structure. The work performed by the contractor proved to be deficient. At the time the contract was entered into, the contractor, Clearwater Prestige Homes, Inc., was insured by the respondent Shelby Mutual Insurance Company under a comprehensive liability policy stating that Shelby would pay for bodily injury or property damage for which the contractor became liable. This general coverage provision was followed by the following three exclusionary provisions:

(a) to liability assumed by the insured under any contract or agreement except an incidental contract; but this exclusion does not apply to a warrant of fitness or quality of the named insured's products or a warranty that work performed by or on behalf of the named insured will be done in a workmanlike manner;

(n) to property damage to the named insured's products arising out of such products or any part of such products;

(o) to property damage to work performed by or on behalf of the named insured arising out of the work or any portion thereof, or out of materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection therewith;

The petitioner homeowners, as claim beneficiaries under this contract for insurance between the general contractor and the insurance company, contend that the average person would interpret subparagraph (a) as granting coverage for damages arising from a breach of warranty of fitness or a failure to perform work in a workmanlike manner. Petitioners further argue that the homeowner, as beneficiary of the insured, should be granted coverage because the policy is ambiguous. We reject both contentions. The district court was correct in concluding that an exclusion does not provide coverage but...

To continue reading

Request your trial
78 cases
  • McNeilab, Inc. v. North River Ins. Co., Civ. A. No. 82-3934.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • 31 Octubre 1986
    ...Co., 495 F.Supp. 240 (E.D.Mich.1980); Vines v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 267 F.Supp. 436 (E.D.Tenn.1967). 20 LaMarche v. Shelby Mut. Ins. Co., 390 So.2d 325 (Fla.1980); Centex Homes Corp. v. Prestressed Systems, Inc., 444 So.2d 66 (Fla.App. 1984); Qualls v. Country Mut. Ins. Co., 123 ......
  • Dodson v. St. Paul Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • 5 Marzo 1991
    ...290 S.E.2d 896, 901 (W.Va.1981); Nation wide Mutual Ins. Co. v. Wenger, 222 Va. 263, 278 S.E.2d 874, 876 (1981); LaMarche v. Shelby Mut. Ins. Co., 390 So.2d 325, 326 (Fla.1980); United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Colver, 600 P.2d 1, 4 (Alaska 1979); Vernon Williams & Son Constr., Inc. v. Contin......
  • K&L Homes, Inc. v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • 5 Abril 2013
    ...exclusions, including the “your work” and “your product” exclusions. The 1973 standard CGL policy interpreted in LaMarche [ v. Shelby Mutual Ins., 390 So.2d 325, 326 (Fla.1980),] contained broad exclusions for damage to “your work” and “your product” stating that the insurance did not apply......
  • St. Paul Surplus Lines v. Diversified Athletic
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • 19 Enero 1989
    ...Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wenger, 222 Va. 263, 278 S.E.2d 874 (1981); Helfeldt v. Robinson, 290 S.E.2d 896 (W.Va.1981); LaMarche v. Shebly Mut. Ins. Co., 390 So.2d 325 (Fla.1980); Indiana Ins. Co. v. DeZutti, 408 N.E.2d 1275 (Ind. 1980); Vernon Williams & Son Constr., Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co., 5......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Warranty cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Florida Causes of Action
    • 1 Abril 2022
    ...So.2d 1212 (Fla. 2004). 2. Comprehensive General Liability Policy: The Florida Supreme Court in LaMarche v. Shelby Mutual Insurance Co. , 390 So.2d 325 (Fla. 1980), analyzed the purpose of the comprehensive general liability policy as follows: The majority view holds that the purpose of thi......
  • Construction defect litigation: courts' fragmented rationales regarding coverage for contractor's faulty workmanship.
    • United States
    • Suffolk Journal of Trial & Appellate Advocacy No. 11, January 2006
    • 1 Enero 2006
    ...67 (noting policy reasons for purpose of liability insurance not for repair or replacement); see also LaMarche v. Shelby Mut. Ins. Co., 390 So. 2d 325, 326 (Fla. 1980) (finding duplicate payment to contractors not intent of parties or policy (28) Centex Homes Corp., 444 So.2d at 67 (outlini......
  • The "other property" problem applying the economic loss rule to construction contracting claims.
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 74 No. 6, June 2000
    • 1 Junio 2000
    ..."premises/ operations" coverage versus "products liability/completed operations" coverage). [17] LaMarche v. Shelby Mut. Ins. Co., 390 So. 2d 325, 326 (Fla. 1980) ("Rather than coverage and payment for building flaws or deficiencies, the policy instead covers damage caused by those [18] See......

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