CENTRAL COLD STORAGE, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
LEXINGTON 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.
Central Cold Storage sought coverage under an all-risks insurance policy issued by Lexington for damage to stored goods caused by an ammonia leak from the refrigeration system. The court held that the ammonia leak, originating from an external source relative to the stored goods, was covered under the policy's "all risks of direct physical loss or damage from any external cause" language, reversing the insurer's denial of the claim.
The court held that the ammonia leak constitutes an external cause of damage to the stored goods covered by the policy. The ammonia, while originating from internal equipment failure, was external to the goods actually damaged in storage, and therefore the loss falls within the policy's coverage for direct physical loss from external causes.
[1] An "all risks" insurance policy covers direct physical loss or damage to insured property from any external cause, unless specifically excluded.
[2] The interpretation of an insurance policy's coverage is a question of law.
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“This policy insures against all risk of direct physical loss or damage to the insured property from any external cause occurring during the period of this policy except as hereinafter excluded.”
The operative policy language establishing coverage for losses caused by external causes, which the court interpreted to include the ammonia leak damage to stored goods.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLexington issued an all-risks policy covering Central Cold Storage's refrigeration warehouse, processing plant, and contents. An ammonia leak occurred…
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 Insurance Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Lexington issued an all risks insurance policy to Central Cold Storage for its re frigeration warehouse and processing plant and the contents therein. The policy provided insurance coverage for “all risks of direct physical loss or damage to the insured property from any external cause occurring during the period of this policy.” An ammonia leak occurred in the refrigeration system which resulted in Central Cold Storage incurring substantial damage to stored goods. Central made a claim which was disallowed based upon the fact that the incident was caused by internal causes and therefore not covered by the policy.
Central brought a declaratory and damage action against Lexington to which Lexington denied any liability. The record establishes that the leak was caused by the separation of a steel end-cap from a header pipe in part of the refrigeration system known as a refrigeration blower coil. The header and end-cap were located in a sealed refrigeration blower coil inside a steel shell which was inaccessible. These parts were non-wearing, non-accessible factory created parts built for a life time and had experienced no problems since the installation of the unit in 1969. • After the leak occurred the engineer, for the insured, welded the end-cap back on the header, pressure tested the system for other leaks and then “resumed normal operation”. The record also reveals that the system was functioning properly prior to the leak and nothing the company or any of its employees could have done could have caused this separation. We reverse.
The question of whether or not a particular insurance policy covers a certain risk is a question of law. We conclude under the language of the policy1 that the proper construction of the insurance contract in the instant case is to extend coverage for the loss. It is conceded that the ammonia was external to the goods in storage which were damaged. See and compare; N-Ren Corporation v. American Home Assurance Company, 619 F. 2d 784 (8th Cir.1980); Contractors Realty Company, Inc. v. Insurance Company of North America, 469 F.Supp. 1287 (S.D.N.Y.1979). There is no claim for the damage to the compressor which would have been internal. Compare, Leonard Bros. Trucking Co., Inc. v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co., 227 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); Greene v. Cheetham, 293 F. 2d 933 (2d Cir.1961); Avis v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co., 283 N.C. 142, 195 S.E. 2d 545 (1973).
Therefore the final summary judgment under review be and the same is hereby reversed with directions to enter a summary judgment finding liability on the policy and to consider further proceedings as to the amount of damage.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
. The policy reads in part as follows:
“1. PERILS INSURED AGAINST: This policy insures against all risk of direct physical loss or damage to the insured property from any external cause occurring during the period of this policy except as hereinafter excluded.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Castillo, 829 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…arly and unambiguously exclude coverage for such losses. We agree. The question of whether a particular risk is covered by an insurance policy is a question of law when the facts are undisputed. See Central Cold Storage, Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 452 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). In accordance with well-established rules of interpretation, terms utilized in an insurance policy should be given their plain and unambiguous meaning as understood by the “man-on-the-street.” See State Farm and Cas. Co. v. Metro…
-
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Ines de Londono, 511 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…2d 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). There was no reason for the question of coverage to be presented to the jury. In the absence of ambiguity, the question was one of law for the trial court’s resolution. See Central Cold Storage, Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 452 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 461 So. 2d 115 (Fla.1984). The trial court erred in permitting the jury to pass on this question since State [*606] Farm was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. I would reverse.…
-
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Weiss, 790 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…., whether the policy at issue provided coverage for decedent in light of the facts as set out above. The question whether or not a particular policy covers a certain risk is a question of law. See Central Cold Storage, Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 452 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). An unambiguous contract of insurance does not require construction, and must be given effect as written. See Perez v. Michigan Mut. Ins. Co., 723 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). The law is well settled that a business auto policy…
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
- Greene v. Cheetham, 293 F.2d 933 (2d Cir. 1961)
- N-Ren Corp. v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 619 F.2d 784 (8th Cir. 1980)
- David J. Kirkley & all other ad valorem taxpayers residing in Morningside Ests. v. Mac S. Haines, 227 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Leonard Bros. Trucking Co., Inc. v. Fireman's Fund INS. Co., 227 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)