TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
ELAINE DE BOTHURI AND P.L.A., INC., 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 theft of personal property, under the specific policy definition, constituted a covered 'property damage' when it resulted in a loss of use of tangible property.
An insured's policy defined 'property damage' to include loss of use of tangible property. The insured sought a declaratory judgment to determine if t…
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 Definition Of 'Property Damage' cases and more on FLexlaw
BARKETT, Judge.
This is an appeal from a final summary judgment in favor of the insured against the insurance company in a declaratory judgment action to determine coverage. Appellee sued appellant’s insured for negligence resulting in theft of her personal property. Appellant subsequently filed a declaratory action seeking to determine if theft was covered by its policy under its definition of property damage. The policy in question provides:
“Property damage” means (1) physical injury to or destruction of tangible property which occurs during the policy period, including the loss of use thereof at any time resulting therefrom, or (2) loss of use of tangible property which has not been physically injured or destroyed providing such loss of use is caused by an occurrence during the policy period.
The trial court found that theft was covered by the policy. At oral argument both parties agreed that the coverage for the theft arises only out of the second definition of property damage, to-wit:
(2) loss of use of tangible property which has not been physically injured or destroyed providing such loss of use is caused by an occurrence during the policy period.
Accordingly, with that clarification, the trial court’s order on the issue of coverage is affirmed. See United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company v. Mayor’s Jewelers of Pompano, Inc., 384 So. 2d 256 (Fla.4th DCA 1980).
HERSEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Mayor's Jewelers OF Pompano, Inc., 384 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)