GEORGE ZAUTNER, APPELLANT,
v.
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
Zautner purchased an inboard boat within an insurance policy period and suffered a covered loss the next day. The insurer denied coverage, arguing the policy's "newly acquired" clause extended only to outboard boats and motors. The court reversed, holding the clause's language was ambiguous and must be construed against the insurer to cover all newly acquired boats.
The court held that the "newly acquired" clause is ambiguous and must be construed against the insurer. The clause reasonably covers all newly acquired boats, not just outboard boats, because the word "outboard" modifies "motors" but is uncertain as to whether it also modifies "boats."
[1] Ambiguities in an insurance policy are construed against the insurer.
[2] A "newly acquired" clause in an insurance policy may cover newly acquired boats even if the clause specifically mentions "outboard motors or boats" and the insured acquir…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Perhaps the most familiar and widely-applied principle in the interpretation of insurance policies is that any reasonable doubt or real ambiguity must be resolved against the company.”
Establishes the controlling interpretive principle that governs the court's analysis of the policy language
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLiberty Mutual issued Zautner a Personal Articles Floater Policy covering an outboard motor and 22-foot outboard boat. The policy contained a "newly a…
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 Breach Of Insurance Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Judge.
Liberty Mutual issued Zautner a Personal Articles Floater Policy insuring his outboard motor and 22-foot outboard boat, which were within an insured “Class of Property” designated in the policy as “outboard boats and motors.” The policy also contained a “newly acquired” clause which stated:
NEWLY ACQUIRED OUTBOARD MOTORS OR BOATS
The insured agrees to notify the company of any outboard motor or boat, ownership of which is acquired by the insured during the policy period, within thirty days following such acquisition date. The limits of liability of such newly acquired outboard motors or boats shall be the actual cash value subject to the deductible amount, if any, shown in this form for similar insured property. The insured shall pay any additional premium required because of the application of insurance to such newly acquired outboard motors or boats, [e.s.] As the parties stipulated below, on May 5, 1978 — within the policy term — Zautner acquired a 25-foot inboard boat powered by two inboard engines. On the next day, May 6, 1978, the inboard boat sustained extensive property damage when its steering failed while it was under way.
Zautner sued Liberty Mutual for the loss under the “newly acquired” provision. The trial judge denied the plaintiff’s, but granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that the clause extended only to newly acquired outboard boats. Zautner appeals and we reverse.
Perhaps the most familiar and widely-applied principle in the interpretation of insurance policies is that any reasonable doubt or real ambiguity must be resolved against the company. E. g., Hartnett v. Southern Ins. Co., 181 So. 2d 524 (Fla.1965); Inter-Ocean Casualty Co. v. Hunt, 138 Fla. 167, 189 So. 240 (1939); Drisdom v. Guarantee Trust Life Ins. Co., 371 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
This rule plainly applies to this case. Simply stated, it is at least uncertain as to whether the word “outboard,” as used in the term “outboard motors or boats,” modifies only the word “motors” to which it is juxtaposed, or modifies the word “boats” as well. If the company desired to insure only newly acquired “outboard boats,” it could and should have made that clear by using the term “outboard motors or outboard boats,” or indeed, the very expression, “outboard boats and motors” actually contained in another part of the same policy. The use of a different term is itself some indication of a more expansive “newly acquired” insuring agreement. Cf. James v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., 66 So. 2d 62 (Fla.1953).
In any event, it is surely not an unreasonable construction of the provision in question that it insures all newly acquired boats or newly acquired “outboard motors.” See also Stuyvesant Ins. Co. v. Butler, 314 So. 2d 567 (Fla.1975), and cases cited; Eagle Star Ins. Co. of London, England v. Ross, 247 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971).
The trial court was therefore required, as a matter of law, so to interpret the policy. See Ellenwood v. Southern United Life Ins. Co., 373 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), and cases cited. Since there is no dispute that the plaintiff suffered an otherwise-covered loss to his newly acquired “boat,” we reverse the judgment under review and remand for the entry of summary judgment as to coverage in favor of the plaintiff.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Jones v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 463 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 1985)…s. The district court held that there was no coverage under the facts of the instant case. We disagree. It is well settled that the construction of an insurance policy is a question of law for the court. See Zautner v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 382 So. 2d 106, 107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). However, it is for the jury to determine whether the facts of the case fall within the scope of coverage as defined by the court: “[wjhether a certain set of facts exists to bring a loss to the insured within the terms of a…
-
Triano v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 565 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…any 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 117…
-
Hulse v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield OF Fla., Inc., 424 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…ous within the policy itself. Where a policy is capable of two constructions, the court should adopt the construction favorable to the insured. Continental Casualty Company v. Gold, 194 So. 2d 272 (Fla.1967); Zautner v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 382 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). The rule of liberal construction is particularly applied to avoid forfeiture or to limit the effect of exception to or limitations upon coverage. J. Appleman, Insurance Law & Practice § 7438 (1976). There is no dispute that the…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Stuyvesant Ins. Co. v. Alphonso Butler, 314 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 1975)
- James v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., 66 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 1953)
- Hartnett v. S. Ins. Co., 181 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 1965)
- Ellenwood v. S. United Life Ins. Co., 373 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Inter-Ocean Cas. Co. v. Effie Hunt, 138 Fla. 167 (Fla. 1939)
- Rosetta Drisdom v. Guar. Tr. Life Ins. Co., 371 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Eagle Star Ins. Co. Ltd. OF London v. Ross, 247 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)