FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
FOREMOST 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.
Florida Power and Light's directed verdict against the insurer was reversed because the insurer failed to prove that the pilot warranty breach increased the hazard, as required by Fla. Stat. § 627.409(2).
A breach of a pilot warranty clause in a marine insurance policy does not void the policy or constitute a defense to a loss unless the insured's breach increased the hazard within the insured's control.
[1] Under Fla. …
Previewing 1 of 1 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 breach or violation by the insured of any warranty, condition, or provision of any wet marine or transportation insurance policy, contract of insurance, endorsement, or application therefor shall not render void the policy or contract, or constitute a defense to a loss thereon, unless such breach or violation increased the hazard by any means within the control of the insured.”
Statutory requirement under Fla. Stat. § 627.409(2) that breach of warranty does not void policy unless it increased hazard.
The parties stipulated to facts demonstrating breach of a pilot clause in an insurance policy. The trial court directed a verdict for the insurer base…
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 Increased Hazard cases and more on FLexlaw
HERSEY, Judge.
On the basis of Glades Flying Club v. America’s Aviation and Marine Insurance Company, 235 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970), the trial court directed a verdict in favor of defendant insurer because the pilot warranty clause contained in the insurance policy at issue had been breached. The parties stipulated to certain facts which demonstrate breach of the pilot clause. Under the Glades Flying Club case, such a breach operates to suspend the insurance as if it had never been in force even though there was no causal connection between noncompliance and the loss or injury. However, subsequent to that decision the legislature enacted Section 627.409(2), Florida Statutes (1981), which provides:
(2) A breach or violation by the insured of any warranty, condition, or provision of any wet marine or transportation insurance policy, contract of insurance, endorsement, or application therefor shall not render void the policy or contract, or constitute a defense to a loss thereon, unless such breach or violation increased the hazard by any means within the control of the insured.
The burden of pleading and proving breach of condition and a resulting in crease of the hazard is on defendant. In the instant case, although not pled, the question of breach was tried by consent. Defendant insurer, however, failed to prove that breach of the pilot clause increased the hazzard. Accordingly, the directed verdict in favor of defendant insurer must be reversed.
REVERSED.
ANSTEAD, J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND/OR CLARIFICATION
PER CURIAM.
We deny rehearing but grant clarification to the extent that we add the following final paragraph to our opinion of January 26, 1983:
Because the applicability of Section 627.-409(2), Florida Statutes (1981) and its effect on the issues raised by the pleadings was not raised by the parties and consequently could not have been considered by the trial court, we remand this cause for such further proceedings as may be necessary and appropriate to determine whether the breach “increased the hazard by any means within the control of the insured.”
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ANSTEAD, C.J., HERSEY, J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Great Lakes Reinsurance (uk), PLC v. Rosin, 757 F. Supp. 2d 1244 (S.D. Fla. 2010)…’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Cox, 742 F.Supp. 609, 611 (M.D.Fla.), aff'd, 892 F.2d 87 (11th Cir.1989). Under § 627.409(2), the burden of proving an increase of the hazard is on Great Lakes. See Florida Power and Light v. Foremost Ins. Co., 433 So.2d 536, 536-37 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). A hazard, for purposes of the statute, concerns “danger to the insured vessel itself.” See Eastern Ins. Co. v. Austin, 396 So.2d 823, 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). *1259 Based on the evidence presented at trial…
-
Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. Ocean Reef Charters LLC, 996 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir. 2021)…rd" in § 627.409(2) “refer[s] to danger to the insured vessel itself"). It appears that, under Florida law, the burden of proving a breach and "a resulting increase of the hazard" is on the insurer. See Fla. Power and Light Co. v. Foremost Ins. Co., 433 So. 2d 536, 536-37 (Fla. App. 1983). E As noted, the Supreme Court in Wilburn Boat considered the then-existing English rule requiring literal performance of marine warranties to be “harsh," 348 U.S. at 320, and some commentators have theorized that the Cour…
-
Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. Ocean Reef Charters LLC, 396 F. Supp. 3d 1170 (S.D. Fla. 2021)…fact. Hornsby-Culpepper, 906 F. 3d at 1311–12. Under section 627.409(2), Plaintiff as the insurer bears the “burden of pleading and proving breach of condition and a resulting increase of the hazard.” Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Foremost Ins. Co., 433 So. 2d 536, 536–37 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Plaintiff attempts to meet this burden by proffering the expert testimony of its rebuttal witness, Capt. Joseph Ahlstrom, in its case-in-chief to show that Defendant’s breaches of the captain and crew warranties caused…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Port Eng'g Servs. Corp. v. Flamingo Drift Fishing, Inc., 235 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- Glades Flying Club v. Americas Aviation & Marine Ins. Co., 235 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)