ROCCO LOGOZZO, II, APPELLANT,
v.
KENT 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.
An insurer's duty to defend is determined by the allegations in the complaint, not the insured's actual liability.
[1] An employer is not liable for the tortious acts of an employee committed outside the scope of employment, absent a breach of a duty owed by the employer to the injured pa…
[2] An insurer's duty to defend is determined by the allegations in the complaint against the insured, not by the insured's ultimate liability.
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 intelligencePlaintiff was shot by an employee of J.B.B. Enterprises. Plaintiff sued J.B.B. and its insurer, Kent. The trial court granted summary judgment for Ken…
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 Liability Insurance cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The plaintiff-appellant Logozzo was shot in a lovers’ dispute at a motel by one John Baiamonte, Jr. Logozzo sued Baiamonte; his employer, J.B.B. Enterprises, Inc., the operator of several restaurants whose principal was Baiamonte’s father; and J.B.B.’s liability insurer, the present appellee, Kent Insurance Compariy. Although it was admitted that Baiamonte was not acting within the scope of his employment and that he, not the company, owned the firearm used in the incident, the trial judge denied J.B. B.’s motion for summary judgment1 apparently on the theory that it might be liable for the senior Baiamonte’s negligence in instructing his son, whom he allegedly should have known was prone to misuse it, to carry a gun while taking money from the restaurants to the bank. This is what he was doing when he deviated from his route, went to the motel, and shot Logozzo. For some reason, however, Kent’s motion for summary judgment on the ground of no coverage was simultaneously and, we think, inconsistently granted. The plaintiff has taken this appeal from that judgment.2
We agree that, since the tortious act in question was committed neither in the course of Baiamonte’s employment with J.B.B. Enterprises nor in breach of any duty owed the plaintiff by the corporation, there is no discernible basis for imposing substantive liability upon J.B.B. either on a “negligent hiring” or any other theory. Mayo v. Highland Park Hospital Corp., 460 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Texas Skaggs, Inc. v. Joannides, 372 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 381 So. 2d 767 (Fla.1980); Friedman v. Mutual Broadcasting System, Inc., 380 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), cert. denied, 388 So. 2d 1112 (Fla.1980); see McArthur Jersey Farm Dairy, Inc. v. Burke, 240 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970).
Nevertheless, the obligation of a liability insurer — particularly with respect to the duty to defend, which is the only one presently involved3 — is not determined by the actual liability of the insured but rather by whether the alleged basis of the action against it falls within the coverage provided by the policy. Accredited Bond Agencies, Inc. v. Gulf Ins. Co., 352 So. 2d 1252 (Fla.1977). If this is the case, the carrier must defend even if the claim is factually incorrect, e.g., St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. Thomas, 273 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973), cert. denied, 282 So. 2d 638 (Fla.1973), or, as seems true here, legally unsound. Klaesen Bros., Inc. v. Harbor Ins. Co., 410 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Linderman v. American Home Assurance Co., 414 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); see generally, Annot., Allegations in third person’s action against insured as determining liability insurer’s duty to defend, 50 A.L.R.2d 458 (1956). The relevant portion of the policy issued to J.B.B. insures it against liability for injuries
to which this insurance applies, caused by an occurrence and arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the insured premises, and all operations necessary or incidental to the business of the named insured, conducted at or from the insured premises.
It seems clear to us that the asserted ground of the action still and presently pending against the insured is that the occurrence “aris[es] out of ... operations necessary or incidental to [its] business, conducted at or from the insured premises” — that is, an alleged impropriety in directing and instructing its employee in the carrying out of the corporate business. Klaesen Bros. Inc., supra; Linderman, supra. Under the principles we have set forth, the summary judgment in Kent’s favor was therefore erroneously entered. It is accordingly vacated and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Vacated, remanded with directions.
. That order is not appealable.
. We note the existence of, but think we need not resolve the question of whether the injured claimant — as opposed to the insured, J.B.B., which has not appealed — has standing to contend, as we hold without reaching the duty to pay, see note 3, infra, that the carrier must defend the pending action. See Linderman v. American Home Ins. Co., infra, in which the procedural status of the case was apparently identical to the present one.
.We do not now and, in light of what we have said, do not anticipate that we will in the future be required to determine the extent, on these facts, of the carrier’s separate duty to indemnify-
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baron OIL Co. v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 470 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…ues even though it is ultimately determined that the alleged cause of action is groundless and no liability is found within the policy provisions defining coverage. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Knowles, 95 So. 2d 413; Logozzo v. Kent Insurance Co., 464 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Accredited Bond Agencies, Inc. v. Gulf Insurance Co., 352 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Universal Atlas Cement Co., 406 So. 2d 1184; Stevens v. Horne, 325 So. 2d 459; Garden Sanctu…1 / 2
-
Sunshine Birds & Supplies, Inc. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co. & Fid. & Guar. Ins. Underwriters, Inc., 696 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…Co. v. Lenox Liquors, Inc., 358 So. 2d 533, 536 (Fla.1977); Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co., Inc. v. Miller, 550 So. 2d 29, 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Reliance Ins. Co. v. Royal Motorcar Corp., 534 So. 2d 922, 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Logozzo v. Kent Ins. Co., 464 So. 2d 605, 606-07 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Federal Ins. Co. v. Applestein, 377 So. 2d 229, 232-33 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), or where as here, there has been a suggestion made that the purported negligent allegations are really allegations of intentional acts in disguise…
-
Lincoln Ins. Co. v. Home Emergency Servs., Inc., 812 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…nstruction of insurance contracts.”); Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Helton, 298 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), cert, discharged, 330 So. 2d 724 (Fla.1976); Cloud v. Shelby Mutual Ins. Co., 248 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); see also Logozzo v. Kent Ins. Co., 464 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Klaesen Bros., Inc. v. Harbor Ins. Co., 410 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Linderman v. American Home Assurance Co., 414 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). Because, in other words, I think it clear that the spoliation claim was on…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- ST. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Thomas, 273 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Klaesen Bros., Inc. v. Harbor Ins. Co., 410 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- McARTHUR Jersey Farm Dairy, Inc. v. Burke, 240 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- Tex. Skaggs, Inc. v. Joannides, 372 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Accredited Bond Agencies, Inc. v. Gulf Ins. Co., 352 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Morton Friedman v. Mut. Broad. Sys., Inc., 380 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Ronlee v. The State of Fla. ex rel. L. C. Morris, Inc., 282 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 1973)
- Duran v. State, 282 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 1973)
- Mayo v. Highland Park Hosp. Corp., 460 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Linderman v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 414 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)