CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
MARJORIE SCHAUBEL AND HOWARD SCHAUBEL, APPELLEES
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.
Continental Casualty Company appealed a declaratory judgment requiring it to provide coverage and defense for a physician sued for libel and slander. The court reversed, holding that the insured's statements made in professional capacities fell within policy exclusions for business pursuits and professional services, regardless of the trial court's finding that the acts lacked malice.
The court reversed and remanded, holding that Continental had no duty to provide coverage because the allegations in the lawsuits indicated that Dr. Schaubel's actions fell within the policy exclusions for business pursuits and professional services.
[1] An insurance policy's exclusion for personal injury intentionally caused by the insured applies when the underlying complaint alleges intentional conduct, regardless of a…
[2] An insurance policy's exclusion for personal injury arising from business pursuits or the rendering of professional services applies when the underlying complaint alleges…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The insurance contract defined personal injury as including "invasion of privacy, libel, slander or defamation of character". The exclusions section provided that the policy would not apply to personal injury intentionally caused by or at the direction of the insureds, nor would it apply to any business pursuits or to the rendering of any professional service.”
Establishes the policy language defining coverage and key exclusions at issue
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceContinental issued a personal umbrella excess liability policy to Dr. Howard Schaubel and his wife. Dr. Schaubel was sued in two lawsuits for libel, s…
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 Business Pursuits Exclusion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Continental Casualty Company, defendant in a declaratory action, appeals a final judgment ordering it to provide coverage and a defense for Howard Schaubel, a medical doctor, who was being sued for libel, slander, and invasion of privacy.
Continental issued a personal umbrella excess liability policy to the Schaubels. The insurance contract defined personal injury as including “invasion of privacy, libel, slander or defamation of character”. The exclusions section provided that the policy would not apply to personal injury intentionally caused by or at'the direction of the insureds, nor would it apply to any business pursuits or to the rendering of any professional service.
Dr. Schaubel was sued in two separate law suits. The one suit claimed libel in connection with statements that Schaubel had made to the press while he was part of an investigation team for the Monroe County Medical Society. The other suit claimed libel, slander, invasion of privacy arising out of these statements made to the press and other recommendations and comments made to committees and members of a Key West hospital staff.1 Each charged that Dr. Schaubel acted with malicious intentions to do damage to the injured party.
Schaubel demanded coverage and a defense from Continental. Continental denied any coverage, claiming that the acts were intentional and/or made in connection with business and the rendering of professional services and, therefore, outside the scope of the policy.
After a non-jury trial, the trial court entered a final judgment in favor of Schau-bel, finding no malice as a matter of fact. We reverse upon the reasoning contained in Federal Insurance Company v. Appelstein, 377 So. 2d 229 (Fla.3d DCA 1979),2 and remand the cause to the trial court with di rections to enter a declaratory judgment in favor of the appellant, finding no duty because of the allegations of the separate suits indicating that the actions on the part of the insured were within the exclusions contained in the policy involved.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
. This was presented as a counterclaim in slander action instituted against one Buckner, a medical doctor. In this connection, see: Buckner v. Physicians Protective Trust Fund, 376 So. 2d 461 (Fla.3d DCA 1979), wherein he was similarly denied coverage.
. It is noted that the Appelstein opinion was rendered on November 20, 1979, subsequent to the entry of the final judgment in this cause on June 22, 1978.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Frank v. Purrelli, 698 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…icies which provide explicit coverage for specified intentional torts, none was decided based on a contractual exclusion for intentional conduct. See Ladas v. Aetna Ins. Co., 416 So. 2d 21, 22-23 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Continental Cas. Co. v. Schaubel, 380 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Federal Ins. Co. v. Applestein, 377 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Courts in other jurisdictions have considered personal umbrella liability policies that provide coverage for specified intentional torts but exclude coverage for…
-
Ludwig Nicholas Ladas, III v. AETNA Ins. Co. & Ernest Carl Moczik, 416 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…der, and the like, the allegations in the complaint were held to negate coverage by conclusively establishing that the exclusionary endorsement applied. Federal Insurance Co. v. Applestein, supra, at 231. Accord Continental Casualty Co. v. Schaubel, 380 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 389 So. 2d 1114 (Fla.1980). Similarly, the allegations of Ladas’ complaint state that Moczik “maliciously, intentionally and without provocation or consent, violently struck plaintiff....” Ladas’ own allegations thus in…
Authorities Cited
- Fed. Ins. Co. v. Allan H. Applestein & the Allan H. Applestein Found. Tr. & Robert Mackin, 377 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Livingston v. State, 376 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)