LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM JONES, 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.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company appealed a summary judgment granting coverage to William Jones under an automobile liability policy for injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident. The court reversed, holding that Jones was excluded from coverage by the policy's clear "cross-employee exception" clause, which barred coverage for injuries to fellow employees.
Jones was excluded from coverage by the policy's clear and unambiguous cross-employee exception clause. Liberty Mutual did not waive or become estopped from asserting this exclusion because Jones failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by any delay in Liberty Mutual's coverage disclaimer.
[1] An automobile liability policy's "cross-employee exception" clause may exclude coverage for claims between employees of the same employer.
[2] A party claiming estoppel or waiver due to a delay in disclaiming liability must demonstrate prejudice to their rights.
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“Jones was excluded from coverage by virtue of the clear and unambiguous "cross-employee exception" clause contained within the policy.”
Establishes the dispositive legal principle that the policy's cross-employee exception excluded Jones from coverage
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Murphy filed suit against Country Home Bakers, William Jones, and Liberty Mutual for damages from a motor vehicle accident in North Carolina. M…
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 Automobile Liability Insurance cases and more on FLexlaw
JORGENSON, Judge.
This case involves a question of coverage under an automobile liability policy issued by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. In our view the trial court erred in holding that there was coverage under the policy and accordingly we reverse.
Robert Murphy filed an action against Country Home Bakers, William Jones and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company seeking recovery for damages resulting from a motor vehicle accident which occurred in North Carolina. The original pleadings alleged that the vehicle was owned by Country Home Bakers and was being operated by Jones while Murphy was a passenger. Liberty Mutual filed a motion to dismiss and a motion for more definite statement on behalf of Jones and Country Home Bakers. Those motions were denied and discovery ensued. During the course of discovery it became apparent that a coverage question between Liberty Mutual and Jones was developing. The original pleadings did not disclose that both Murphy and Jones were employees of Country Home Bakers and, at the time of the accident, were acting within the scope of their employment. The law firm that initially represented all the defendants withdrew from the litigation and Liberty Mutual denied coverage to Jones. Thereafter Murphy filed an amended complaint which Jones answered. By way of a cross-claim Jones sought declaratory relief against Liberty Mutual, and attorney’s fees, on the coverage issue. Subsequently Liberty Mutual settled Murphy’s claims against all parties, including Jones. The only issue thus remaining was Jones’s cross-claim against Liberty Mutual for attorney’s fees on the coverage issue. Both Jones and Liberty Mutual moved for summary judgment on the cross-claim. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Jones and denied Liberty Mutual’s motion for summary judgment.
Liberty Mutual argues, and we agree, that Jones was excluded from coverage by virtue of the clear and unambiguous “cross-employee exception” clause contained within the policy. See General Insurance Co. of America v. Reid, 216 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968), cert. denied, 222 So. 2d 752 (Fla.1969). See also 45 A.L.R.3d 288, 295, and cases collected therein.
Jones’s assertion that Liberty Mutual should be estopped from denying coverage or has waived its right to deny coverage is without merit. His reliance on Cigarette Racing Team, Inc. v. Parliament Insurance Co., 395 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), and Insurance Co. of St. Louis, Missouri v. Yates, 200 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 204 So. 2d 328 (Fla.1967), is misplaced. A party claiming an estoppel or waiver because of a delay m disclaiming liability must show that his rights were prejudiced thereby. Phoenix Assurance Co. of New York v. Hendry Corp., 267 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972), cert. discharged, 277 So. 2d 532 (Fla.1973); Consolidated Mutual Insurance Co. v. Ivy Liquors, Inc., 185 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 189 So. 2d 633 (Fla.1966). This record is devoid of any evidence to support an estoppel or waiver; nor has Jones demonstrated how Liberty Mutual’s disclaimer has prejudiced him, an ingredient necessary to the viability of either of his theories, see Consolidated Mutual Insurance Co., 185 So. 2d at 189. Indeed, Liberty Mutual has conclusively shown that Jones has not been prejudiced.
For the foregoing reasons the summary judgment on the cross-claim in favor of Jones is reversed and this action is remanded with directions to enter summary judgment on the cross-claim in favor of Liberty Mutual.
By way of a separate interlocutory appeal, Case No. 82-1479, Liberty Mutual argues its right to seek contribution from Jones under section 768.31, Florida Statutes (1979). We do not reach that issue because it is apparent from the record that the trial court has not yet ruled on the contribution claim.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Compupay, Inc., 654 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…nsured .... ” Florida courts have consistently given effect to unambiguous “cross-employee” policy exclusion clauses, such as the one in this case, and have barred recovery for injuries inflicted by a fellow employee. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jones, 427 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); McRae v. Snelling, 303 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); General Ins. Co. of America v. Reid, 216 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968), cert. denied, 222 So. 2d 752 (Fla.1969). The facts in Ode’s complaint arose out of the course and sco…
-
MacTown, Inc. v. Cont'l Ins. Co., 716 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…ss employee” exclusions have consistently been held to bar recovery for injuries inflicted by a fellow employee. See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Compupay, Inc., 654 So. 2d 944, 947-48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995);2 Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jones, 427 So. 2d 1117, 1118 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); McRae v. Snelling, 303 So. 2d 670, 671 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); General Ins. Co. of Am. v. Reid, 216 So. 2d 41, 43 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968). The complaint clearly alleges that both Desrouleaux and Scott were employees of Maetown an…
-
Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. OF Pittsburgh v. Sahlen, 999 F.2d 1532 (11th Cir. 1993)…may find itself es-topped from contesting coverage if the insureds show prejudice resulting from the delay. Centennial Ins. Co. v. Tom Chistafson Industries, Inc., 401 So. 2d 1143, 1144 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981); Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Jones, 427 So. 2d 1117, 1118 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1983). In September, 1989, National Union asserted its reservation of rights respecting coverage in the Interim Funding Agreement. National Union then filed an initial complaint in May, 1990 which was delayed by the bankrupt…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Consol. Mut. Ins. Co. v. IVY Liquors, Inc., 185 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Gen. Ins. Co. OF Am. v. Reid, 216 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)
- State Rd. Dep't v. Kendry, 222 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 1969)
- Cigarette Racing Team, Inc. v. Parliament Ins. Co., 395 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Phoenix Assurance Co. OF NEW York v. Hendry Corp., 267 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)
- Nat'l Cold Transp., Inc. v. Mayo, 277 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 1973)
- F. E. C. Ry. Co. v. Sims, 204 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 1967)
- Dixon Stanford v. State, 189 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1966)
- Staples v. Staples, 189 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1966)
- Ins. Co. OF ST. Louis v. Yates, 200 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)