Patriot General Ins. Co. Concord, Mass. v. Automobile Sales, Inc.
| Decision Date | 19 June 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-1681,78-1681 |
| Citation | 372 So.2d 187 |
| Parties | PATRIOT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY CONCORD, MASSACHUSETTS, Appellant, v. AUTOMOBILE SALES, INC., d/b/a Toyota Automobile Sales, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bradford, Williams, McKay, Kimbrell, Hamann & Jennings and David S. Currie, Miami, for appellant.
Walton & Garrick and Edward L. Walton, Miami, for appellee.
Before PEARSON and KEHOE, JJ., and EZELL, BOYCE F., (Ret.), Associate Judge.
Patriot General Insurance Company, defendant below in a declaratory action on a contract of insurance, takes this appeal from a final judgment ruling that it had an obligation to defend the appellee, Automobile Sales, Inc. (Toyota), in a lawsuit filed against Toyota by a third party. We reverse and hold that the insurance policy at issue prescribed no such duty to defend under these circumstances.
In 1973 Melvin Rappaport was involved in an automobile accident. The impact to his vehicle apparently caused the seat lock mechanism supporting the back of the driver's seat to collapse, throwing Rappaport into the rear seat of the car. Rappaport's automobile was transported to appellee Toyota for repairs. He allegedly instructed Toyota not to remove or repair the seat lock mechanism since he intended to use that device as evidence in a warranty action against the manufacturer. Despite these instructions, the seat lock mechanism was replaced and the allegedly defective mechanism was apparently lost or destroyed while the automobile was in Toyota's custody.
Rappaport sued Toyota alleging that the loss of the seat lock mechanism had deprived him of any viable cause of action based upon breach of warranty, product liability or negligence. He alleged in his complaint that Toyota's conduct was intentional, malicious and had essentially limited his claim on the defective seat lock to one for personal injuries and incidental damages.
Toyota demanded that appellant Patriot defend it in the Rappaport case. Patriot declined, claiming that it had no obligation to defend Toyota under the provisions of a Garage Liability policy issued to Toyota by Patriot. Toyota defended the Rappaport lawsuit and prevailed on a motion for summary judgment. Summary final judgment was later affirmed on appeal. Rappaport v. Southeast Toyota Distributors, 363 So.2d 881 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).
Toyota then brought the instant declaratory action against Patriot seeking a declaration of its rights under the applicable insurance policy to determine whether Patriot was obligated to defend the Rappaport lawsuit on behalf of Toyota. Both parties moved for summary judgment on the pleadings. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Toyota and against Patriot and entered a final judgment in which it concluded that the allegations of Toyota's complaint did fairly bring that cause within the coverage provided by the Patriot policy and that Patriot was under a legal duty to defend on behalf of Toyota.
We reverse on the ground that the allegations contained in the Rappaport complaint were not sufficient to bring that cause within the coverage provided Toyota by the Patriot policy. We hold that Patriot was under no duty to defend Toyota in that action.
The duty of an insurance carrier to defend a claim depends solely upon the allegations...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Posigian v. American Reliance Ins. Co. of New Jersey
...defend a claim depends solely upon the allegations in the complaint filed against the insured." Patriot General Insurance Company v. Automobile Sales, Inc., 372 So.2d 187, 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); National Union Fire Insurance Company v. Lenox Liquors, Inc., 358 So.2d 533 (Fla.1977); Relianc......
-
Koala Miami Realty Holding v. Valiant Ins.
...allegations of the Alvarado amended complaint will determine whether Valiant has a duty to defend Koala. Patriot Gen. Ins. Co. v. Auto. Sales, Inc., 372 So.2d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). The duty to indemnify is determined by the underlying facts of the case and not by the allegations. See Hage......
-
Reliance Ins. Co. v. Royal Motorcar Corp., 4-86-2817
...533 (Fla.1977); Buckner v. Physicians Protective Trust Fund, 376 So.2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Patriot General Insurance Co. v. Automobile Sales, Inc., 372 So.2d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), not by the actual facts, State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Edgecumbe, 471 So.2d 209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)......
-
Alge v. Allstate Floridian Insurance Company, 3D09-607.
...CURIAM. Affirmed. Old Republic Ins. Co. v. W. Flagler Assocs., Ltd., 419 So.2d 1174 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Patriot Gen. Ins. Co. v. Auto. Sales, Inc., 372 So.2d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). ...