U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Norlin Industries, Inc.
| Decision Date | 18 March 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. AL-220,AL-220 |
| Citation | 428 So.2d 325 |
| Parties | U.S. FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, as Subrogee for Richard J. Bennett and Betty J. Bennett, Appellant, v. NORLIN INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Fred M. Johnson and Randolph P. Murrell, of Fuller & Johnson, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Robert P. Gaines, of Beggs & Lane, Pensacola, for appellee.
Appellant appeals the trial court's judgment of dismissal of its action for damages against appellee. We affirm.
In its complaint, appellant alleged that Richard and Betty Bennett leased a building to appellee; that due to appellee's negligence, a fire damaged the building; and that pursuant to a policy of insurance issued to the Bennetts, appellant paid them the sum of $211,000 and obtained subrogation rights against appellee.
Paragraph 7 of the lease provides that the lessor agrees to maintain fire insurance on the building. Paragraph 11 provides for options on the part of the lessor and lessee in the event of fire damage. Paragraph 10 reads:
The lessee agrees to indemnify the lessor from any damage to the property or that may be sustained by individuals as the result of injuries on the premises due to the negligence of the lessee. The lessee further agrees to carry liability insurance with minimum limits of $100,000 per person, $300,000 per accident with the said lessor being named as a co-insured on the policy.
Appellee filed a motion to dismiss contending that paragraphs 7 and 11 of the lease showed that the lessor (the Bennetts) agreed to procure and maintain for the benefit of both lessor and lessee (appellee) fire insurance coverage on the building and that, consequently, appellant is not entitled to recover from one of the beneficiaries of its insurance policy the amount it paid to the other beneficiaries of the policy. In opposition to the motion to dismiss, appellant argued that paragraph 10 of the lease imposes liability on appellee in this case.
The pivotal question on this appeal is whether appellee was an insured under the insurance contract in question. We conclude that it was. Smith v. Ryan, 142 So.2d 139 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962) and Housing Investment Corporation v. Carris, 389 So.2d 689 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). In Smith, an owner and a contractor entered into a contract which provided that the owner would carry fire insurance on the premises and that the contractor would be a named insured in all policies. The owner did obtain fire insurance but she failed to have the contractor named as an insured on the policy. The contract further provided that if either party should suffer damage in any manner because of the wrongful act or neglect of the other party, the damaged party would be reimbursed by the other party. After a fire damaged the property, the insurance company paid the owner for losses and then brought suit against the contractor, alleging negligence. The court affirmed the trial court's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Continental Ins. Co. v. Kennerson
...fire to an insurer ... [the lessee] qualifies as an intended beneficiary under the insurance policy." U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Norlin Indus., Inc., 428 So.2d 325, 326 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). It is well established that parties to a contract may mutually agree that one party will obtain insurance ......
-
State Farm Florida Ins. Co. v. Loo
...intend to limit the Tenant's liability for her negligent acts. Tout, 390 So.2d at 156; Cf. U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Norlin Indus., Inc., 428 So.2d 325, 326 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (affirming dismissal of a subrogation action filed by landlord's insurer against allegedly negligent tenant where leas......
-
Dyson & Co. v. Flood Engineers, Architects, Planners, Inc.
...the benefit of the insurer, from the contractor to indemnify the insurer for a covered loss. See also U.S. Fire Insurance Co. v. Norlin Industries, Inc., 428 So.2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). In this case, if Flood Engineers had been an insured under the builders' risk policy as required by th......
-
Gap, Inc. v. Brazilian Beat Tour, Inc.
...v. E.L. Nezelek, Inc., 480 So.2d 1333 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), review denied, 491 So.2d 279 (Fla.1986); United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Norlin Industrs., Inc., 428 So.2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Fairchild ex rel. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. W.O. Taylor Commercial Refrigeration & Elec. Co.,......