FABIOLA TORRES, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF OSCAR TORRES, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
SOUTHEASTERN AVIATION (CALIFORNIA), INC., 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 estate appeals a trial court judgment denying insurance coverage for a flight engineer killed in a cargo plane crash. The court affirmed, holding that the insurance policy's clear language excluded the deceased employee from coverage under the employee exclusion clause and did not cover crew members.
The insurance policy did not provide coverage for Torres's death. Torres was excluded from coverage under the policy's employee exclusion clause, and the policy neither named crew members as individuals entitled to coverage nor included them within the definition of 'passengers' entitled to benefits.
[1] An insurance policy's clear and unambiguous language must be given effect as written.
[2] An employee exclusion clause in an insurance policy may preclude coverage for an employee of an assured.
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“the language of the insurance policy is clear and unambiguous and must therefore be given effect as written”
Establishes the fundamental principle that unambiguous policy language controls and constrains judicial interpretation in insurance coverage disputes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFlight engineer Oscar Torres and two other crew members were killed in a crash of a cargo plane owned by Monarch Aviation and operated by Exaco. Torre…
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 Employee Exclusion Clause cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
Fabiola Torres, as personal representative of the estate of Oscar Torres, appeals an amended final judgment entered in favor of Southeastern Aviation (California), Inc. [Southeastern]. The trial court ruled that an insurance policy issued by Southeastern did not provide coverage for the death of Oscar Torres [Torres]. Finding no error in the trial court’s determination, we affirm.
Flight engineer Torres and two other crew members were killed in the crash of a cargo plane owned by Monarch Aviation, Inc. [Monarch] and operated by Expreso Aero Costarricense, Ltd. [Exaco]. Torres was employed by Air Crews, Inc. [Air Crews], which had furnished the crew to Exaco for the fateful flight. Torres’s estate brought a wrongful death action against Monarch, Monarch’s insurer Southeastern, Exaco, and Air Crews. Pursuant to an agreement among the parties, the court first conducted a non-jury trial for the purpose of deciding the issue of Torres’s coverage under the Southeastern insurance policy. At the conclusion of the trial, the court ruled that Southeastern’s policy did not cover Torres’s death. The court entered an amended final judgment in favor of Southeastern.
We agree with the trial court’s determination that the language of the insurance policy is clear and unambiguous and must therefore be given effect as written. Midwestern Mutual Insurance Co. v. Santiesteban, 287 So. 2d 665 (Fla.1973); Hess v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 458 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Morrison Assurance Co. v. City of Opa-Locka, 389 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); U.S. Liability Insurance Co. v. Bova, 347 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Brown v. Gulf Life Insurance Co., 343 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); United States Fire Insurance Co. v. Morejon, 338 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 345 So. 2d 426 (Fla.1977). Under the terms of the policy, Torres was an employee of an assured and was thus excluded from coverage under the employee exclusion clause. In any event, the policy neither names crew members as individuals entitled to coverage nor includes them within the definition of “passengers,” entitled to benefits under the contract.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the amended final judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Godur, 476 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…t we think are the clear terms of the insurance contract before us. Travelers Ins. Co. v. Bartoszewicz, 404 So. 2d 1053 (Fla.1981); Dixie Ins. Co. v. Beaudette, 474 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Torres v. Southeastern Aviation (California), Inc., 472 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), and cases cited. Because Ms. Godur was thus not insured by Continental, it follows from the principles already enunciated that it is entitled to indemnification from her as a matter of law. We also hold that Continental’s motion…
Authorities Cited
- Midwest Mut. Ins. Co. v. Santiesteban, 287 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1973)
- United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Morejon, 338 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- U. S. Liab. Ins. Co. v. Bove, 347 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Hess v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 458 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Morrison Assurance Co., Inc. v. City OF Opa-Locka, 389 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Earlie Brown v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., 343 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)