JIMMY WINEGARNER, APPELLANT,
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA INSURANCE COMPANY, AN INSURANCE COMPANY AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF 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.
A yacht insurance policy covering a 31-foot Chris Craft contained an In-chmaree clause insuring against negligence of 'master, mariners, engineers, or pilots,' but excluded willful misconduct. The insurer denied coverage for the owner's negligence in sinking the boat, arguing the owner was not within the class of covered persons. The court reversed, holding that for a small boat typically operated by its owner, the owner must be considered a master or mariner when acting in such capacity.
The court held that the negligence clause must be interpreted to include the owner when acting in the capacity of master, mariner, engineer, or pilot, because a 31-foot boat is usually operated and maintained by its owner, not by a crew, and any other interpretation would render the clause meaningless.
[1] An insurance policy insuring against the "negligence of master, mariners, engineers, or pilots" may be interpreted to include the negligence of the boat's owner when acti…
[2] A "named perils" insurance policy covering "negligence of master, mariners, engineers, or pilots" is meaningless as applied to a small boat typically operated by its owne…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“A clause in such a policy insuring against "negligence of master, mariners, engineers, or pilots" is known as an In-chmaree clause and typically contains language expressly excluding losses resulting from want of due diligence by an owner.”
Establishes that In-chmaree clauses conventionally exclude owner negligence, but the policy here lacked such exclusion
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellee issued a named-perils yacht policy covering appellant's 31-foot Chris Craft. The policy insured against loss caused by 'negligence of master,…
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 Inchmaree Clause cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Judge.
Appellee issued a yacht policy covering appellant’s 31-foot Chris Craft. The policy, a “named perils” policy, insured against loss caused by “negligence of master, mariners, engineers, or pilots.” Appellant negligently caused his boat to sink and brought this suit to recover proceeds under the policy for the loss.
Appellee asserted four affirmative defenses, the first being that the negligence of the owner of the boat is not included in the phrase “negligence of master, mariners, engineers, or pilots.” No other named peril applied; hence appellee’s position denied coverage altogether. The trial judge agreed with appellee on this point and rendered summary -final judgment in its favor. We reverse.
A yacht policy seems obviously inappropriate for a 31-foot boat but, nevertheless, that is the type of policy which appellee issued. A clause in such a policy insuring against “negligence of master, mariners, engineers, or pilots” is known as an In-chmaree clause and typically contains language expressly excluding losses resulting from want of due diligence by an owner.1 Pacific Dredging Co., Inc. v. Hurley, 65 Wash.2d 394, 397 P. 2d 819 (1964). The policy issued by appellee contained no such exclusion. Significantly, the policy separately excluded coverage for loss caused by “willfull misconduct of the assured.” There is no assertion of willful misconduct on appellant’s part.
We are compelled to agree with appellant that the clause in question, insuring against “negligence of master, mariners, engineers, or pilots,” is meaningless as applied to a 31-foot boat unless the owner of the boat is considered a master, mariner, engineer or pilot when acting in any such capacity. Surely appellee must be expected to know that a 31-foot boat is usually operated and maintained by its owner, not by a crew.
Accordingly, we reverse the summary final judgment entered by the trial judge in appellee’s favor. Since we are in doubt as to the status of the other three affirmative defenses asserted by appellee, we decline appellant’s request that we direct entry of final summary judgment for appellant.
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
HOBSON, A. C. J., and GRIMES, J., concur. . The “Inchmaree” clause takes its name from the Steamship Inchmaree involved in Thames & Mersey Marine Insurance Co., v. Hamilton, Fraser & Co., 12 App.Cas. 484 (H.L.1887).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Weber v. NEW Hampshire Ins. Co., 480 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…essel unseaworthy under the circumstances of this case. That portion of the insurance policy with which we are concerned is commonly referred to in the maritime industry as the “Inchmaree” clause. See Winegarner v. South Carolina Insurance Company, 403 So. 2d 571, n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). It describes the nature and scope of the perils encompassed within the coverage and in the present matter, the Inchmaree provision appears in the policy as follows: Except as may be excluded elsewhere in this policy the in…