MORRISON ASSURANCE COMPANY, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF OPA-LOCKA, FLORIDA, 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 insurance policy exclusion for participation in sports applied to the injured party's activity, regardless of supervision.
Virginia Pitts was injured while practicing softball at a city park. The city's liability insurer, Morrison, sought a declaratory judgment regarding c…
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 Exclusionary Clauses cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The City of Opa-Locka operates a recreational area known as Sherbondy Park, and has purchased from Morrison Assurance Company a comprehensive liability policy to cover injuries sustained by the public while on the premises. One Virginia Pitts sustained injuries at the park when she fell over a wheelbarrow left near a softball diamond. At the time of the incident, she was practicing with her team for an upcoming softball game.
Morrison sought a declaratory judgment of non-coverage below, and appeals from an adverse ruling. We reverse.
A policy exclusion provided that coverage would not extend “to bodily injury to any and all persons practicing, instructing, or participating in any physical training, sport, athletic activity or contest.” The trial court ruled that the exclusion unambiguously did not pertain to “unauthorized, non-sponsored, unsupervised physical play or acts”: Since Virginia’s activity was unsupervised, etc., it was covered.
We find no policy reference to or any implicit suggestion of a policy distinction between supervised and unsupervised, sponsored and unsponsored, authorized and unauthorized play. Virginia was a member of a softball team. That team congregated at the park to practice for a game to take place later in the day. She was injured during the course of that practice. She was “practicing... [a] sport. ... ”
It is urged that the city’s intention was to purchase coverage for all incidents and occurrences except those involving authorized or sponsored participants, e. g. league teams, which provide their own insurance as a precondition to using the field. That may well be a valid statement of the city’s intent, but absent ambiguity in the contract terms, a contract of insurance must be given effect as written. Midwest Mutual Insurance Co. v. Santiesteban, 287 So. 2d 665 (Fla.1973); Connecticut General Life Insurance Co. v. Moore, 357 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jefferson Ins. Co. OF NEW York v. SEA World OF Fla., Inc., 586 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…isitation at St. Louis, 598 F.Supp. 1131 (E.D.Mo.1984) (following Morrison Assurance Co. v. School Board of Suwannee County); Town of Surfside v. Morrison Assurance Co., 394 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Morrison Assurance Co. v. City of Opa-Locka, 389 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). The purpose of exclusions such as the one in Jefferson’s policy is to except from liability coverage the risks which are normally encountered in practicing for or participating in a particular sports contest or exhibition. Mount…
-
Morrison Assurance Co. v. The Sch. Bd. OF Suwannee Cnty., 414 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…an activity that falls within the exclusion. [*582] We are in agreement with the Third District which has had more than one opportunity to examine the identical exclusion and has found it unambiguous. See Morrison Assurance Co. v. City of Opa-Locka, 389 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), and Town of Surfside v. Morrison Assurance Co., 394 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Nor does another policy provision, an exemption under the “Teacher’s Liability Coverage Endorsement,” create an ambiguity as appellee suggests. B…
-
Am. Motorists Ins. Co. v. Farrey's Wholesale Hardware Co., Inc., 507 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…unambiguous on its face, the policy must be given full effect. Midwest Mut. Ins. Co. v. Santiesteban, 287 So. 2d 665 (Fla.1973); Boyd v. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co., 256 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1971); Morrison Assurance Co., Inc. v. City of Opa-Locka, 389 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). The fact that an insurance policy requires analysis to comprehend its scope does not mean it is ambiguous. Hess v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 458 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). The language in the policy here which limits American’s l…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Midwest Mut. Ins. Co. v. Santiesteban, 287 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1973)
- Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. Moore, 357 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)