EDWARD J. GERRITS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
ROYAL MARINE SERVICE CO., INC., ET AL., APPELLEES; ROYAL MARINE SERVICE CO., INC., APPELLANT, V. LEXINGTON INSURANCE CO., ET AL., 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.
The court held that the crane was not unambiguously cargo under the insurance policy, and therefore the exclusion did not apply.
Appellants insured a crane used to load cargo onto a barge. The crane traveled on the barge solely for off-loading purposes and was not itself to be d…
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 Policy Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the amended final judgment in favor of the appellees and remand the cause to the trial court for the entry of a judgment for the appellants. The trial court determined that Gerrits’ crane, which was used to load cargo onto a barge, which travelled on the barge for the sole purpose of off-loading the cargo at the point of destination, and which itself was not to be delivered or off-loaded, was nonetheless cargo so as to exclude the crane from coverage under the insurance policy in question.1 In our view, that determination, upon which the judgment stands or falls, is contrary to the well-settled rule that where a term of an insurance policy is susceptible of two interpretations, the interpretation which sustains the claim for indemnity must be adopted. See, e.g., Poole v. Travelers Insurance Co., 130 Fla. 806, 179 So. 138 (1938); National Merchandise Co. v. United Service Automobile Association, 400 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Dorfman v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., 342 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Here the term “cargo” most certainly does not unambiguously include the crane.2 That being the case, the judgment below cannot stand.
Reversed and remanded.
. The protection and indemnity policy covering Royal Marine Service Co., Inc., the company hired by Gerrits to transport certain building materials by barge, would cover damages to the crane unless the crane were considered cargo and thus within an exclusion to the policy.
. Indeed, it is arguable that the commonly understood meaning of the word "cargo" is goods and merchandise — freight—intended for delivery. See The Manila Prize Cases, 188 U.S. 254, 269-70, 23 S.Ct. 415, 421, 47 L.Ed. 463 (1902) (cargo defined as that "which was intended to be disposed of at the foreign port.").
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Vadra, 563 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…ic that insurance policies, as well as the Insurance Code, will be construed in favor of the insured and insurance coverage. See New York Life Ins. Co. v. Bird, 152 Fla. 532, 12 So. 2d 454 (1943); Edward J. Gerrits, Inc. v. Royal Marine Service Co., 456 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), review denied sub nom. Lexington Ins. Co. v. Royal Marine Service Co., 464 So. 2d 555 (Fla.1985). The trial court correctly concluded that acceptance of the premium without the conditional receipt reinstated the policy. Bankers L…
-
Harvard Farms, Inc. v. Nat'l Cas. Co., 555 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…en facts must be construed in favor of the insured and against the insurer who chose the language in drafting the policy. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Pridgen, 498 So. 2d 1245, 1248 (Fla.1986); Edward J. Gerrits, Inc. v. Royal Marine Serv. Co., 456 So. 2d 1316, 1317 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), rev. denied sub nom. Lexington Ins. Co. v. Royal Marine Serv. Co., 464 So. 2d 555 (Fla.1985). After examining the exclusionary clause in question, as well as the coverage provided, we conclude that the exclusionary clause i…
Authorities Cited
- Poole v. The Travelers Ins. Co., 130 Fla. 806 (Fla. 1937)
- Nat'l Merchandise Co., Inc. v. United Serv. Auto. Ass'n & Jerome C. Cohan & Lyndia Cohan Boyd, 400 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- The Manila Prize Cases, 188 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1903)
- Sherwin Dorfman v. AETNA Life Ins. Co., 342 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)