Thomas v. Prudential Property and Cas., 95-1385
| Decision Date | 10 May 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-1385,95-1385 |
| Citation | 673 So.2d 141 |
| Parties | 21 Fla. L. Weekly D1132 Randy THOMAS and Sarah Thomas, Appellants, v. PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY, etc., et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Donald L. O'Dell of McDonough, O'Dell, Wieland, Williams & Krakar, Orlando, for Appellants.
Steven W. Igou and D. Paul McCaskill, Orlando, for Appellees.
In this action for declaratory relief, we affirm the trial court's final judgment.
As Randy Thomas operated his jet ski, he towed his brother, Gary, on an inflatable tube. When the tube collided with a boat parked on the beach, Gary was injured. As a result of this accident, Gary and his wife sued Randy for negligence. Randy, in turn, demanded that his homeowners insurance provider, Prudential Property and Casualty Company (Prudential), provide coverage and a defense to Gary's lawsuit. Prudential responded by filing this declaratory action, asking the trial court to declare that coverage for Gary's accident was excluded by the following provision in Randy's homeowners policy:
1. Coverage E--Personal Liability and Coverage F--Medical Payments to Others do not apply to bodily injury or property damage:
* * * * * *
f. arising out of:
* * * * * *
Watercraft:
(1) with inboard or inboard-outdrive motor power of more than 50 horsepower owned by or rented to an insured.
Prudential asserted that this exclusion applied to Gary's accident because the motor power on Randy's jet ski exceeded 50 horsepower. The trial court agreed and entered judgment in favor of Prudential, cogently setting forth its reasons as follows:
[B]ased upon the evidence presented at trial, I conclude that while there are several generally accepted points on the powertrain of the watercraft in controversy to measure horsepower, the contract between Prudential and [Randy Thomas] clearly mandates that motor horsepower of the watercraft be measured, and not anything else. Since Prudential's policy exclusion is clear and unambiguous and does not violate public policy, I find that the exclusion applies in this case to bar coverage and that Prudential has no duty to indemnify [Randy Thomas] as to the alleged acts of negligence arising out of the boating accident.
On appeal, Randy challenges this ruling, arguing that the trial court erred in finding that the exclusionary language of Prudential's homeowners policy was not ambiguous. In this regard, Randy argues that the exclusion did not apply to Gary's boating accident, notwithstanding his stipulation that his jet ski had an inboard motor with horsepower of 60, because the horsepower of his jet ski's pump was only 20.290. At trial, the parties presented...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sphinx Intern. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co.
...plain and ordinary sense and given their everyday meaning as understood by the "man on the street." Thomas v. Prudential Property and Casualty, 673 So.2d 141, 142 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Federated Mutual Insurance Company v. Germany, 712 So.2d 1245 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). It is well established t......
-
Hrynkiw v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co.
...(Fla. 5th DCA 1994). 3. See State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Castillo, 829 So.2d 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Maynard; Thomas v. Prudential Prop. & Cas., 673 So.2d 141 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Lindheimer v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 643 So.2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), review denied, 651 So.2d 1194......
-
Sphinx Intern. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co.
...it is consistent with Florida case law admonishing courts not to look for ambiguity when there is none. Thomas v. Prudential Prop. & Cas., 673 So.2d 141, 142 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) ("While it is true that ambiguity may exist in an insurance contract when the terms of the contract are subject t......
-
Hyman v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., No. 01-15497.
...none of the terms in that provision are defined in the policy, we accord each its ordinary meaning. See Thomas v. Prudential Prop. & Cas., 673 So.2d 141, 142 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1996) ("[I]nsurance contracts must be read in light of the skill and experience of ordinary people, and given their ......