Peerless Ins. Co. v. Sun Line Helicopters, Inc., 65-290
| Decision Date | 23 November 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 65-290,65-290 |
| Citation | 180 So.2d 364 |
| Parties | PEERLESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. SUN LINE HELICOPTERS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Blackwell, Walker & Gray and James E. Tribble, Miami, for appellant.
Alfred J. Anton, Miami, for appellee.
Before CARROLL, BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.
Peerless Insurance Company, one of the defendants below, appeals a final judgment rendered for a co-defendant, Plastic Components Construction, Inc., [hereafter Plastic Components] and the plaintiff, Sun Line Helicopters, Inc., in an action for reformation of an insurance contract or, in the alternative, for damages.
The plaintiff alleged that it was in the general aviation business and leased an aircraft to the defendant, Plastic Components, for use in marketing plastic homes primarily outside the continental limits of the United States. Insurance on the aircraft was issued by the appellant through its agent, James D. Mackey Agency, Inc., to insure the interests of the plaintiff and Plastic Components. It was alleged that the agent was advised that the plane was to be used for overseas flights and that this was one of the risks to be insured. Two months after the date of the policy, the aircraft developed engine trouble while on a flight from Florida to the Island of Puerto Rico, with a planned refueling stop at Great Inagua Island in the Bahamas. As a result, the pilot cancelled his flight plan by radio and prepared for an emergency landing with one engine out. The plane crashed and was totally demolished as it attempted the emergency landing at Great Inagua.
The appellant insurance company denied liability for the loss of aircraft on the premise that the loss occurred outside the territorial limits covered by the policy. The plaintiff filed suit against Peerless Insurance Company, its insurance agent, and Plastic Components.
On the day of the jury trial, the court held a conference with counsel for the parties with regard to the conduct of the trial and the issues. Following the conference, the trial judge dismissed the jury and made a statement based upon his construction of the contract to the effect that it was a valid contract and that there was coverage. Counsel for the parties had waived jury trial on the remaining issues, and the trial judge proceeded to decide the case on the pleadings, depositions, and exhibits. Final judgment was thereupon entered in favor of plaintiff and Plastic Components and against appellant, Peerless Insurance Company, from which judgment this appeal is taken.
The appeal involves an interpretation of the following clause in the insurance policy:
* * *
* * *
'VI. OCCURRENCES, POLICY PERIOD, TERRITORY, PURPOSE OF USE
This policy applies only to occurrences during the policy period while the aircraft is within the United States of America (excluding Alaska), its territories or possessions, Canada or Mexico, or is being transported between ports thereof, and is owned, maintained and used for the purposes stated as applicable thereto in the Declarations.'
* * *
* * *
Appellant contends that since the plane was to stop for refueling at Great Inagua in the Bahamas, that this was not between ports of the United States of America; that even if the facts are construed to show the flight of the plane was between ports of the United States of America, this was, in fact, abandoned when the pilot cancelled his flight plan to Puerto Rico because of an emergency; and that in any event, the plane was not 'being transported' but was transporting the pilot to Puerto Rico.
The courts in construing insurance contracts have made some rules of interpretation which apply in this case. Contracts of insurance should be construed to give effect to the intent of the parties. If uncertainty is present in a policy, it should be construed against the insurer. Rigel v. National Casualty Company, Fla.1954, 76 So.2d 285.
In Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Cartmel, 1924, 87 Fla. 495, 100 So. 802, 35 A.L.R. 1013, the court said:
* * *
* * *
'This court is in accord with the recognized rule for the interpretation of insurance contracts that---- "The policy must be liberally construed in favor of the insured so as not to defeat without a plain necessity his claim to the indemnity which in making the insurance it was his object to secure." (Citations omitted.)
* * *
* * *
The flight plan indicated that this was a flight between two ports of the United States of America, with a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stuyvesant Ins. Co. v. Butler, 46143
...v. Ross, 247 So.2d 514 (Fla.App.1971); Quick v. National Indemnity Co., 231 So.2d 22 (Fla.App.1970); Peerless Insurance Co. v. Sun Line Helicopters, Inc., 180 So.2d 364 (Fla.App.1965). In view of the nature of the policy and the ambiguous use of the term 'minor' in the policy, we agree with......
-
Ranger Insurance Company v. Mathews
...Fla.App.1969, 222 So.2d 58; Transamerica Insurance Company v. Rutkin, Fla.App.1969, 218 So.2d 509; Peerless Insurance Company v. Sun Line Helicopters, Inc., Fla.App.1965, 180 So.2d 364. The appellees rely upon American Fire & Casualty Company of Orlando, Florida v. Marathon Aviation Maratho......
-
California State Auto. Assn. Inter-Ins. Bureau v. Superior Court
...to Mexico. (See Foremost Insurance Co. v. Eanes, supra, 134 Cal.App.3d at p. 572, 184 Cal.Rptr. 635; cf. Peerless Insurance Co. v. Sun Line Helicopters, Inc. (Fla.1965) 180 So.2d 364.) There is no uncertainty or ambiguity to be resolved in their States and between the United States and its ......
-
Insurance Co. of North America v. Cash
...v. Underwriters at Lloyds, London, U.S.Dist.Ct., S.D. Idaho 1961, 195 F.Supp. 168; Peerless Ins. Co. v. Sun Line Helicopters, Inc., District Court of Appeal of Florida, 3rd Dist. 1965, 180 So.2d 364; Powell Valley Electric Co-op., Inc. v. United States Aviation Underwriters, Inc., Civ.App. ......
-
Chapter Twenty-Eight
...insured locations see Vargas v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 651 F.2d 838, 840–41 (2d Cir. 1981); Peerless Ins. Co. v. Sun Line Helicopters, Inc., 180 So. 2d 364 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1965). [3791] . Another example of an insuring agreement is as follows: To pay on behalf of the Insured all sums whic......