Triano v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 10 July 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-2333,89-2333 |
| Citation | 565 So.2d 748 |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly D1793 Carol TRIANO, Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Joe N. Unger, Miami, and H. Lawrence Hardy, Orlando, for appellant.
Barnett, Clark and Barnard and James K. Clark, Miami, for appellee.
Before HUBBART, FERGUSON and LEVY, JJ.
Carol A. Triano brought suit against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company [State Farm] to enforce payment under an accidental death and dismemberment policy for the death of her husband. Mr. Triano was killed during a sky diving accident when he collided in the air with another individual as they were deploying their sports parachutes. The accidental death coverage provisions of Mr. Triano's insurance policy contained an exclusion clause which excluded benefits where death resulted as a consequence of "[t]ravel or flight in any vehicle or device for aerial navigation including boarding or alighting therefrom." State Farm moved for summary judgment based upon the exclusion clause arguing that sport parachuting involves travel or flight in a device for aerial navigation. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of State Farm. We reverse.
The specific circumstances surrounding Mr. Triano's fatal jump were set forth in the deposition testimony of Mr. Libert. Mr. Libert is an experienced sport skydiver, and was acting as the jumpmaster during the skydive which resulted in Mr. Triano's death. According to Libert, Mr. Triano was learning "relative work" which is sky diving in relation to another person, remaining level or diving down to catch them. Mr. Triano was part of a jump group consisting of five persons who were to "link- up" in a circle while free-falling, and then to separate and release their parachutes at a fixed altitude. Mr. Triano was below another individual in the process of deploying his parachute when the other individual collided with Mr. Triano, killing both of them as a result.
Mr. Triano was using a Strato Cloud Delta which is a "ram-air parachute" that is rectangular in shape. This type of parachute remains open by the force of air pushing inside it and looks much like an inflatable mattress. Libert testified that the ram-air parachute is capable of being maneuvered from side to side by its pilot and can be turned in a 360 degree arc. He further testified that the parachute has speed ranges and also a braking system which enables it to descend at a slower rate of speed.
State Farm argues that the insurance policy excludes coverage for death caused by a sports parachute accident, because a sports parachute is a "device for aerial navigation," citing to the cases of Edison v. Reliable Life Insurance Company, 664 F.2d 1130 (9th Cir.1981) and Cabell v. World Service Life Insurance Company, 599 S.W.2d 652 (Tex.Ct.App.1980). The plaintiff argues that her husband's death did not result from "travel or flight in any ... device for aerial navigation" citing primarily to the case of Childress v. Continental Casualty Company, 461 F.Supp. 704 (E.D.La.1978), aff'd, 587 F.2d 809 (5th Cir.1979).
While we recognize that there is some merit in both arguments, we expressly do not decide the issue of whether a sports parachute is a "device or vehicle for aerial navigation." Rather, we base our decision to reverse the summary judgment entered in favor of State Farm upon our determination that the contract language is ambiguous as to whether sports parachutes fall within the exclusion.
It is a fundamental principle of contract interpretation that any ambiguities in an insurance policy must be strictly construed against the insurer and in favor of the insured. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Pridgen, 498 So.2d 1245 (Fla.1986); Hartnett v. Southern Insurance Company, 181 So.2d 524 (Fla.1965); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Mallard, 548 So.2d 733 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Zautner v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 382 So.2d 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Drisdom v. Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Company, 371 So.2d 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Shelby Mutual Insurance Company v. LaMarche, 371 So.2d 198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Winegarden v. Peninsular Life Insurance Company, 363 So.2d 1172 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 370 So.2d 461 (Fla.1979); Moore v. Connecticut...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hudson Ins. Co. v. Double D Management Co., Inc.
...and that under Florida law such ambiguity must be construed in favor of coverage for the insured. Triano v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., 565 So.2d 748, 749 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). To support this argument, Defendants rely on dictionary definitions, purported drafting history, and on several......
-
State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Deni Associates of Florida, Inc.
...exclusionary clauses are construed against the insurer even more strictly than are coverage clauses. Triano v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 565 So.2d 748 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). The pollution clause in the Deni policy was apparently drafted in an effort to remove a common exception in pollut......
-
Purrelli v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co.
...in insurance policies are construed more strictly than coverage clauses. See Birge, 659 So.2d at 311; Triano v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 565 So.2d 748, 749 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). We have not found, nor have the parties cited, any controlling Florida authority addressing the exact issue ......
-
Adams v. Continental Cas. Co.
...that parachuting does not constitute "aerial navigation," and is not excluded from coverage, include Triano v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 565 So.2d 748 (Fla.App.Dist.1990), and Childress v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 461 F.Supp. 704 (E.D.La.1978), aff'd 587 F.2d 809 (5th Cir.1979) (per curiam). ......