Security Ins. Co. of New Haven v. King
| Decision Date | 09 November 1960 |
| Parties | SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW HAVEN, Petitioner, v. J. C. KING, S. D. Ingram, d/b/a Ingram Housemoving and Construction Company, Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, and Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Ernest W. Welch, of Isler, Welch & Jones, Panama City, for petitioner.
Davenport & Johnston, Panama City, Harry Lewis Michaels, of Ausley, Ausley & McMullen, Paul E. Speh and Burnis T. Coleman, Tallahassee, for respondents.
The petitioner, by certiorari, seeks review of an order of the Florida Industrial Commission holding it, as carrier for the employer, solely liable for the payment of the compensation claim in question. The only issue is whether the petitioner, Security Insurance Company, should be held solely liable or whether it and the respondent, Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, should be held jointly and severally liable.
At the initial hearing on this matter, the deputy commissioner refused to receive evidence bearing on the intent of the parties to the Hartford contract of insurance. After review by the full commission and appeal to the District Court of Appeal, First District, the cause was remanded with directions to the deputy to take evidence on the question of the intent of the parties. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company v. King, Fla.App., 114 So.2d 184.
On remand, the deputy found that the intent of both the employer and the agents of Hartford was to enter into a contract of insurance covering the period from June 7, 1957, to June 20, 1957. Due to a clerical error in the office of Hartford's underwriter, however, the policy as actually written covered the pariod from June 7 1957, to June 7, 1958, and the certificate of insurance subsequently filed with the commission reflected the issuance by Hartford of such a policy. The accident giving rise to the instant claim occurred on August 19, 1957. It was found that Security had issued a policy of insurance effective July 15, 1957 to July 15, 1958. On these facts, the deputy determined that the only coverage on August 19, 1957, was that furnished by Security. On review, the full commission affirmed the order of its deputy. After a study of the records and upon consideration of the briefs and arguments of the parties, the court is of the opinion that the findings of the deputy are supported by competent, substantial evidence.
The attorney for petitioner relies heavily on the fact that at the time of the accident Hartford had on file with the commission a certificate of insurance covering the crucial period which had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Curtis-Hale, Inc. v. Geltz, CURTIS-HAL
...policy period. In the instant case, the accident occurred outside the original one-year policy period. See Security Insur. Co. of New Haven v. King, 124 So.2d 129 (Fla.1960) (where Employer and Insurer intended to enter into contract providing for coverage for a period ending prior to date ......
-
Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Rich, 37764
...two carriers is liable. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. King, 114 So.2d 184 (1st Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1959). Security Insurance Co. of New Haven v. King, 124 So.2d 129 (Fla.1960), illustrates the converse of the instant situation. There, the industrial judge was allowed to determine that ev......
-
Midstate Hauling Co. v. Reliable Insurance Co.
...the insurer prior to the 30 days from the filing of notice, without approval of the Commission, was ineffective. See: Security Ins. Co. v. King, 124 So.2d 129 (Fla.1960), citing Otterbein v. Babor & Comeau Co., 272 N.Y. 149, 5 N.E.2d 71, 107 A.L.R. 1510 (1936); cf. American Casualty Co. v. ......
-
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Nettles, BT-244
...to the division and to the employer...." To the same effect, see Fla.Admin.Code Rule 38F-6.008(1). See also Security Insurance Co. of New Haven v. King, 124 So.2d 129, 130 (Fla.1960) ("[A] workman's compensation policy or contract of insurance, once issued, remains in full force and effect ......