HOTEL PROPERTIES, LTD., APPELLANT,
v.
HERITAGE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, A CORPORATION, AND MOUNT VERNON FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLEES
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.
Hotel Properties sought business interruption insurance coverage from Heritage Insurance and Mount Vernon Fire Insurance for losses resulting from a fire that closed a restaurant tenant's operations. The court affirmed the jury's verdict denying coverage, holding that the insured's claimed losses did not constitute an 'interruption of business' under the policies because the hotel itself was never forced to cease operations.
The court held that Hotel Properties was not entitled to business interruption coverage because (1) its claim regarding lost percentage rent was waived at the outset of trial; (2) the reduction in hotel room occupancy did not constitute an interruption of the hotel's own business operations within the meaning of the policies; and (3) any error in submitting the question to the jury was harmless.
[1] A claim for business interruption insurance coverage may be waived at the outset of trial.
[2] Business interruption insurance is intended to indemnify for losses resulting from the inability to continue using specified premises.
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“the purpose of business interruption insurance is to indemnify for loss due to inability to continue to use specified premises”
Establishes the fundamental principle that business interruption coverage requires actual inability to use the insured's own premises, not mere reduction in business from external causes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA fire damaged a restaurant operated as a tenant in Hotel Properties' business. The hotel received rent from the restaurant under a lease providing fo…
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 Breach Of Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The judgment below, based on the jury’s findings that the appellee-insurance companies did not provide business interruption insurance coverage to the appellant for a loss resulting from a fire on the premises of its business tenant, a restaurant, is affirmed upon a holding that (1) even if arguable, the appellant’s claim that its business was interrupted by reason of a loss of rental income under a lease calling for appellant to receive a percentage of the restaurant’s gross income as rent was specifically waived at the outset of trial; (2) the appellant’s other claim that its business was interrupted when the occupancy of its hotel rooms was reduced by virtue of the closing and unavailability of the restaurant was correctly resolved against it as this diminution in business did not constitute an interruption of the appellant’s business within the policies in question, see Pacific Coast Engineering Co. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co., 9 Cal.App.3d 270, 88 Cal.Rptr. 122 (1970) (purpose of business interruption insurance is to indemnify for loss due to inability to continue to use specified premises); Rothenberg v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 115 Ga.App. 26, 153 S.E. 2d 447 (1967) (recovery under business interruption policy denied where theft of merchandise resulted in loss of business; court held insured had not suffered an interruption of business, but rather a diminution in volume); Howard Stores Corp. v. Foremost Insurance Co., 82 A.D.2d 398, 441 N.Y.S.2d 674 (1981), affd, 56 N.Y.2d 991, 439 N.E. 2d 397, 453 N.Y. S.2d 682 (1982) (recovery denied for water damage to business where there was no actual suspension of business, but rather an alleged adverse effect on continuing sales); accord, National Children’s Expositions Corp. v. Anchor Insurance Co., 279 F. 2d 428 (2d Cir.1960) (recovery denied under insured’s use and occupancy policy for reduction in attendance due to severe snowstorm, since building was open during entire period in question; court held recovery unavailable in absence of interruption in use and occupancy of building); and (3) the error, if any, in submitting the question of coverage to the jury for its decision was totally harmless under the circumstances of this case.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hotel Props., Ltd. v. Savage-Manfre & Assocs., Inc., 493 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…PER CURIAM. After this court held in Hotel Properties, Ltd. v. Heritage Insurance Co., 456 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), pet. for review denied, 464 So. 2d 555 (Fla.1985), that its insurance policies did not cover the loss of rental income sustained as a result of the destruction of a leased, separately owned restaurant and bar on its hotel premise…
-
P & G Trucking of Brandon, Inc. v. Riverland Hedging & Topping, Inc. (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)…ess interruption damages in the context of insurance law. Business interruption damages are generally awarded in property loss cases involving business interruption insurance policies. See, e.g., Hotel Props., Ltd. v. Heritage Ins. Co. of Am., 456 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). The general purpose of business interruption insurance “is to protect earnings which the insured would have enjoyed had no interruption occurred.” 31 Fla. Jur. 2d Insurance § 2438 (emphasis added); see also 31 Fla. Jur. 2d I…
-
Ramada INN Ramogreen, Inc. v. The Travelers Indem. Co. OF Am., 835 F.2d 812 (11th Cir. 1988)…the aggregate amount of $287,500. The restaurant was designated “Location 1, [Building] 5,” and it was insured for a total of $172,500. The district court in this case relied heavily upon Hotel Properties Ltd. v. Heritage Insurance Co. of America, 456 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), petition for review denied, 464 So. 2d 555 (Fla.1985), the only Florida case dealing with this issue. The facts in the two cases are virtually identical. In Hotel Properties, a hotel owner filed a claim against its insurance comp…
Authorities Cited
- Nat'l Child's. Expositions Corp. v. Anchor Ins. Co., 279 F.2d 428 (2d Cir. 1960)