State Auto Mut. Ins. Co. v. Scroggins, 87-308
| Decision Date | 21 July 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-308,87-308 |
| Citation | 529 So.2d 1194,13 Fla. L. Weekly 1731 |
| Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1731 STATE AUTO MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, etc., Appellant, v. Larry SCROGGINS, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
W. Lane Neilson of Neilson & Associates, Orlando, for appellant.
Gary E. Doane of Hightower & Doane, Orlando, for appellees.
State Auto Mutual Insurance Company appeals from an adverse summary judgment finding that a tort claim by the appellees, Ernest Durden and Evelyn Durden, his wife, is covered under a homeowners insurance policy issued by the company to the appellee, Larry Scroggins. We reverse.
On August 13, 1983, Durden and Scroggins met for a drink with friends at Charlie's Pool Hall in Orlando, Florida. Durden left the table where they were sitting and upon his return Scroggins pulled the chair out from under him as he sat down. Durden fell and suffered personal injuries.
The Durdens filed an action against Scroggins seeking damages for these injuries on October 17, 1985. State Auto received notice of the incident on January 27, 1986. Thereafter, State Auto filed an action for declaratory relief against Scroggins and the Durdens seeking a determination of the parties' rights under the homeowners policy it had issued to Scroggins prior to the incident. State Auto contended that Scroggins violated the terms and conditions of the policy by failing to notify the company of the incident until nearly three years after it occurred and that coverage should be excluded because Scroggins's actions were "expected or intended."
Both the Durdens and State Auto filed motions for summary judgment. The Durdens' motion contended that Scroggins's conduct was not of the type which is excluded under the homeowners policy. State Auto's motion contended that Scroggins, although immediately aware of the serious injuries, failed to give timely notice of the incident and therefore failed to comply with a condition precedent to coverage under the policy. The trial court granted the Durdens' motion for summary judgment and entered a final judgment finding coverage. State Auto's motion was denied. The issues on appeal are the intent of the insured as contemplated by the policy exclusion and the apparent violation of the notice provisions of the policy.
In regard to the second issue, we agree with State Auto that the trial court could not determine, as a matter of law, that the policy requirement of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United Services Auto. Ass'n v. Selz
...& Casualty Insurance Co. v. Swindal, 622 So.2d 467, 472-73 (Fla.1993), the supreme court discussed State Auto Mutual Insurance Co. v. Scroggins, 529 So.2d 1194 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), in which the insured intentionally pulled a chair out from under someone as that person went to sit down. The ......
-
Prudential Property and Cas. Ins. Co. v. Swindal
..." Prudential II, 599 So.2d at 1317. Our analysis is consistent with the district court's decision in State Auto Mutual Insurance Co. v. Scroggins, 529 So.2d 1194 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). There, the court applied an insurance policy's intentional injury exclusion clause to preclude coverage when......
-
Reyes v. State Farm Florida Ins. Co., 3D05-2382.
...550 So.2d 29 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Caldwell, 630 So.2d 668 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); State Auto Mut. Ins. Co. v. Scroggins, 529 So.2d 1194 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). In Miller, a physician became angry with a colleague and grabbed the stethoscope his colleague was wearing a......
-
Borrack v. Reed
...danger to its employee from the intentional horseplay or misconduct of another employee.”); State Auto Mut. Ins. Co. v. Scroggins, 529 So.2d 1194, 1195 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (“[W]e find that the exclusion section in the homeowners policy issued to [the insured]—‘bodily injury ... intended by ......
-
The intentional acts exclusion.
...shooting spree even where the insured intended only to frighten his victims). (17) In State Auto Mutual Insurance Co. v. Scroggins, 529 So. 2d 1194, 1195 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. 1988), the court explained that "[t]he fact that an unintended serious injury resulted ... is irrelevant to the issue of......