MARIE DARRAGH, APPELLANT,
v.
CADWALLADER BROCK AND UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO., INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to the insurer because the insured's actions were intended to cause harm, thus falling within the policy exclusion.
Appellant sued an insured for injuries sustained during a physical confrontation. After learning the homeowner's policy excluded intentional acts, she…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Appellate Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant claims on this appeal that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the appellee-insurer. We find no error and affirm. The action aróse out of a physical confrontation between appellant and Brock at his residence during which she allegedly received injuries. She initially sued Brock for intentional tort, but subsequently, upon learning' that his homeowner’s liability insurance excluded coverage for “bodily injury and property damage which is either expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured,” amended her complaint to allege negligence. The insurer argued below and here that Brock’s alleged acts could in no way be considered negligence.
Our review of the record supports the insurer’s position. Whatever the insured’s degree of force might have been, it is clear from the appellant’s own deposition that the natural probable, and intended result of his acts was to harm her. On this record, the'insurer’s liability was precluded as a matter of law. See West Building Materials, Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 368 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Spreen, 343 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
Brock in his individual capacity also filed an “appellee’s brief” in this cause contesting the summary judgment in favor of his insurer. However, he failed to file a cross-appeal indicating his adversity to the appellee-insurer. We therefore find that his motion requesting appellate attorney’s fees against the insurer is precluded. Even if he had proceeded properly, there is not at this point any “judgment or decree . against an insurer and in favor of an insured” justifying an award of attorney’s fees under Section 627.428(1), Florida Statutes (1977).
Accordingly, Brock’s motion for attorney’s fees is DENIED and the summary judgment in favor of U.S.F. & G. is AFFIRMED.
ERVIN, Acting C. J., MELVIN, J., and MASON, ERNEST E., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clemmons v. Am. States Ins. Co., 412 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…ntionally pushing out of his way with his car. The court held the exclusion did not apply because “coverage is not excluded as a matter of law where there was an ‘intentional act’ but not an ‘intentionally caused’ injury.” See also Darragh v. Brock, 366 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). In Colonial Life and Accident Insurance Co. v. Cooper, 378 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), the insured jumped off of a building intending to injure himself and collect damages from the building’s owner. He died instead. The court…
-
Beaton v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 508 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…firm upon the authority of Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Spreen, 343 So. 2d 649 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Clemmons v. American States Insurance Company, 412 So. 2d 906 (Fla.5th DCA 1982), pet. for rev. denied, 419 So. 2d 1196 (Fla.1982); Darragh v. Brock, 366 So. 2d 801 (Fla.1st DCA 1979). As in Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Spreen, the record reflects that Croland acted to cause harm to appellant Kenneth Beaton. Croland twice admitted in his deposition that he intended to hit Beaton. The trial court expressly f…
-
Ludwig Nicholas Ladas, III v. AETNA Ins. Co. & Ernest Carl Moczik, 416 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…tly struck plaintiff....” Ladas’ own allegations thus indicate that the insured’s actions fell clearly within the exclusion contained in Aetna’s policy, and coverage was properly denied.2 Federal Insurance Co. v. Applestein, supra; Darragh v. Brock, 366 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); see also Draffen v. Allstate Insurance Co., 407 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Continental Casualty Co. v. Schaubel, supra; West Building Materials, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance Co., 363 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Grange Mut…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hartford Fire Ins. Co. & St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Spreen, 343 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Jones v. City OF Hialeah, 368 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)