Stewart v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., X--34
| Decision Date | 17 July 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. X--34,X--34 |
| Citation | 316 So.2d 598 |
| Parties | Ronald STEWART, Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Philip Barton of Barton & Cox, Gainesville, for appellant.
William C. O'Neal and John H. Haswell of Chandler, O'Neal, Avera, Gray, Lang & Stripling, Gainesville, for appellee.
Appellant, a police officer, while responding to a fellow officer's call for assistance, was involved in an accident resulting in the loss of his left leg. He submitted his claim to his insurer, appellee here, under the 'dismemberment' provision of his insurance policy. The claim was rejected by appellee upon the ground that at the time of the accident appellant was operating an emergency vehicle within the meaning of an exclusionary clause contained in the policy of insurance. That clause excludes coverage while the insured is engaged in the operation, loading or unloading of 'a commercial automobile, ambulance, fire truck, police car or other emergency vehicle'. Upon suit being filed, the trial judge granted appellee's motion for summary final judgment, thus this appeal.
Appellant's attorneys have favored us with an excellent brief carefully analyzing and dissecting the exclusionary clause, citing numerous cases, concluding that the police motorcycle being operated by appellant at the time of the accident resulting in his injuries was not, in the context there used, an 'emergency vehicle'. His oral argument was equally as well prepared and presented. However, the law is well settled that the language employed in a contract of insurance, and other contracts for that matter, should be read in the light of the skill and experience of ordinary people and resort should not be made to uncommon meanings nor contextual distortion. An unambiguous contract of insurance does not require construction and must be enforced as written. (Midwest Mutual Insurance Company v. Santiesteban, Fla.1973, 287 So.2d 665).
We conclude that the exclusionary clause involved sub judice is not ambiguous and that a police motorcycle, particularly while being operated in response to an officer's call for assistance, is indeed an 'embergency vehicle'.
Appellant's motion for attorney's fees incident to this appeal is denied.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
US v. Pepper's Steel and Alloys, Inc.
...(citing Morrison Assurance Co. v. School Board, 414 So.2d 581, 581 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1982) and Stewart v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co., 316 So.2d 598, 599 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1975)); Midwest Mutual Insurance Co. v. Santiesteban, 287 So.2d 665 (Fla.1973). The court should construe insurance p......
-
Morgan v. Continental Cas. Co.
...must be construed as written. Brown v. Gulf Life Insurance Company, 343 So.2d 91 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Stewart v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, 316 So.2d 598 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). Moreover, in construing the provision of insurance contracts, courts are bound to give the language its pla......
-
Brill v. Indianapolis Life Ins. Co., 85-3633
...Assurance Co. v. School Board, 414 So.2d 581, 581 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1982) (citations omitted); Stewart v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co., 316 So.2d 598, 599 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1975). In construing terms appearing in insurance policies, Florida courts commonly adopt the plain meaning of words ......
-
Bello v. Holyoke Mut. Fire Ins. Co. in Salem, Mass., 79-689
...477 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); U.S. Liability Insurance Company v. Bove, 347 So.2d 678 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Stewart v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, 316 So.2d 598 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). ...