Roberts v. R & S Liquor Stores, Inc.
| Decision Date | 28 May 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. E-394,E-394 |
| Citation | 164 So.2d 533 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Charles R. ROBERTS, Appellant, v. R & S LIQUOR STORES, INC., Kenneth R. Scheurman and Gilbert Mackoul, and Hanover Insurance Company, a corporation, Appellees. |
Norton, Wood & Moore, Jacksonville, for appellant.
Howell, Kirby, Montgomery & Sands, Jacksonville, for appellees.
This appeal is from a summary final judgment rendered in favor of the garnishee, Hanover Insurance Company, a corporation, in a garnishment proceeding instituted against it by appellant garnishor, Charles R. Roberts. It is contended that the trial court erred in concluding that under the applicable law the garnishee is entitled to judgment.
Appellant first instituted action against appellees R & S Liquor Stores, Inc., Kenneth R. Scheurman, and Gilbert Mackoul, seeking damages for personal injuries sustained by him as a result of an assault made upon him by the individual defendants, Scheurman and Mackoul, while acting within the scope of their duties and employment as employees of the corporate defendant. The trial resulted in a verdict awarding Roberts damages against the corporation in the sum of $15,000.00, and against Mackoul in the sum of $3,700.00. Upon the entry of judgment Roberts procured the issuance of a writ of garnishment directed to the appellee Hanover Insurance Company alleging that the latter had, at the time of the assault and battery involved in the principal suit, contracted to indemnify P & S Liquor Stores from any liability imposed upon it as a result of the occurrence of any accident in connection with the operation of its business, which insurance policy covered and included assaults and batteries such as were suffered by plaintiff at the hands of the corporation's employees. The garnishee insurance company denied liability under the terms and provisions of its insurance contract. The insurance policy in question provides that the company will pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death at any time resulting therefrom, sustained by any person and caused by accident. Under the definitions clause of the policy it is provided that assault and battery shall be deemed an accident unless committed by or at the direction of the insured.
Roberts and the insurance company each filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that there existed in the case no genuine issue of any material fact, and that each movant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. There was submitted to the trial judge for his consideration in disposing of these motions the pleadings and transcript of the proceedings in the principal suit by the appellant Roberts against the corporate defendant and its two employees, an affidavit of Hanover's attorney together with certain exhibits contained in the file. The trial court found that there existed no genuine issue of any material fact and from the evidence it affirmatively appeared without dispute that the assault and battery committed upon Roberts by Scheurman and Mackoul was by or at the direction of the corporate defendant R & S Liquor Stores, Inc., and therefore does not come within the coverage of the liability insurance policy sued upon in the garnishment proceedings. The trial court thereupon entered summary judgment in favor of the garnishee Hanover Insurance Company, from which judgment this appeal is taken.
An examination of the insurance policy involved herein reveals that Hanover Insurance Company bound itself to indemnify the corporate defendant R & S Liquor Stores for any sums which the latter may become legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury sustained by any person and caused by accident, the term accident including assault and battery unless committed by or at the direction of the insured. The sole question presented to the court for determination in the garnishment proceedings was whether the assault and battery committed by Mackoul and Scheurman upon Roberts was by or at the direction of their employer, R & S Liquor Stores, Inc., the insured under the policy. If not, then Hanover would be liable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Federal Ins. Co. v. Applestein
...must be deemed "committed by or at the direction of" the trust, within the meaning of the exclusion. Roberts v. R & S Liquor Stores, Inc., 164 So.2d 533, 535, 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964) is (I)t affirmatively appears without dispute that the assault in this case made by Mackoul on Roberts was e......
-
American Surety Company of New York v. Coblentz
...under Florida law. See Consolidated Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ivy Liquors, Inc., Fla. Ct.App.1966, 185 So.2d 187; Roberts v. R & S Liquor Stores, Inc., Fla.Ct.App. 1964, 164 So.2d 533. The court below, by its judgment, concluded that the state court "finding" that the fatal shooting was due to the i......
-
Balboa Ins. Co. v. Floyd
...on liability in its favor, finding no coverage because the act of Sawyer was an intentional one, citing: Roberts v. R & S Liquor Stores, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 164 So.2d 533; Stout v. Grain Dealers Mut. Ins. Co., 4th Cir. 1962, 307 F.2d 521. The mother of the deceased moved for a summary judgm......
-
Sterling Ins. Co. v. Hughes
...to pay amounts assessed against its insured as punitive damages. The garnishee submits that the case of Roberts v. R & S Liquor Stores, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 164 So.2d 533 is controlling. The garnishee asserts that the court in the above case held that where an assault is committed by an empl......