PEDRO D. CABALLERO, APPELLANT,
v.
METROPOLITAN PROPERTY AND LIABILITY 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.
Affirmed summary judgment for Metropolitan Insurance where the insured sought duplicate recovery for a property loss already paid by another insurer, holding that insurance is a contract of indemnity only and does not permit recovery beyond actual loss even with multiple policies.
An insured cannot recover twice for the same property loss from multiple insurers, as insurance contracts are indemnity contracts that limit recovery to actual loss.
[1] Insurance contracts are indemnity contracts that restrict recovery to actual loss, and an insured cannot recover the same loss from multiple insurers even when multiple p…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 recovery by an owner, where several insurance policies exist on the same property and amount in the aggregate to more than its value, is restricted to the actual loss, since the contract is one of indemnity only”
Citing American Jurisprudence on the principle that multiple insurance policies do not permit recovery exceeding actual loss
Caballero's vehicle sustained property damage covered by two insurance policies issued by Hanover and Metropolitan. Hanover paid the full loss, and Me…
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.
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
Caballero sustained property damage to his vehicle which was covered by two insurance policies, issued respectively by Hanover and the appellee Metropolitan. Hanover paid Caballero the full amount of his loss and Metropolitan then directly reimbursed Hanover the pro rata share for which it was responsible under its policy.1 On these undisputed facts, the trial judge correctly entered summary judgment for Metropolitan in Caballero’s action against it to recover again for his already satisfied claim. See State Fire & Casualty Co. v. National Indemnity Co., 225 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969) (uninsured motorist carriers may make pro-ration inter se); see also Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Chacon, 408 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Foremost Ins. Co. v. Medders, 399 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); 44 Am. Jur.2d Insurance § 1781 (1982) (“As a general rule, the recovery by an owner, where several insurance policies exist on the same property and amount in the aggregate to more than its value, is restricted to the actual loss, since the contract is one of indemnity only[.]”).
Affirmed.
. OTHER INSURANCE: If other insurance also covers the loss we will pay our fair share. Our share is the proportion our limit bears to the total of all applicable limits.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State Fire & Cas. Co. v. Nat'l Indem. Co., 225 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Martin v. State, 399 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Fid. & Cas. Co. OF NEW York v. Jaime and Guarina Chacon, 408 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)