KENNETH BEATON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY 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.
The court held that an insurer is not obligated to provide liability coverage when the insured intentionally causes bodily injury.
The insured admitted in his deposition that he intended to hit the appellant. The trial court found that the insured committed an assault and battery,…
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 Intentional Acts Exclusion cases and more on FLexlaw
WALDEN, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order granting appellee State Farm Fire and Casualty Company’s motion for summary judgment and denying James Edward Croland liability coverage and from a final summary judgment in favor of appellee. We affirm upon the authority of Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Spreen, 343 So. 2d 649 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Clemmons v. American States Insurance Company, 412 So. 2d 906 (Fla.5th DCA 1982), pet. for rev. denied, 419 So. 2d 1196 (Fla.1982); Darragh v. Brock, 366 So. 2d 801 (Fla.1st DCA 1979).
As in Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Spreen, the record reflects that Croland acted to cause harm to appellant Kenneth Beaton. Croland twice admitted in his deposition that he intended to hit Beaton. The trial court expressly found:
That in the instant case Mr. James Edward Croland, committed an assault and battery upon Mr. Kenneth Beaton. Mr. Croland reacted to deliberately hit Mr. Beaton and, therefore, said actions were expected or intended by the insured. The bodily injury suffered by Mr. Beaton was expected or intended by the insured Mr. Croland and, therefore, the Plaintiff, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company’s Motion For Summary Judgment is hereby granted and the court finds no coverage extended to Defendant, James Edward Croland, in this matter. See Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Donald Spreen, et al., 343 So. 2d 649 (Fla.3d DCA 1972 ).
This case is to be distinguished from Zordan By and Through Zordan v. Page, 500 So. 2d 608, 610 (Fla.2d DCA 1986), where the record reflected no determination by the trial court of the subjective intent of the insured or any resolution of other factual issues relevant to determining the insured’s intent.
AFFIRMED.
HERSEY, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Landis v. Allstate Ins. Co., 516 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…ndis’s complaint were clearly intentional or delib [*307] erate acts of the insureds, the Fusters. Allstate was, accordingly, not required to provide the Fusters with either a defense or coverage. See, e.g., Beaton v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 508 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (insured not entitled to liability coverage where evidence established that insured had intentionally hit assault victim); Leek v. Reliance Ins. Co., 486 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (no recovery for property owner whose trees…
-
Nat'l Ins. Underwriters v. Cessna Aircraft Corp., 522 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…ohm-Gesellschaft, A.G., 515 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Smith v. Sturm, Ruger, Smith & Company, Inc., 510 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Lazo v. Baring Industries, Inc., 508 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Carroll v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 508 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Purty v. McDonnell Douglas Corporation, 508 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Sampson v. Caterpiller Tractor Co., 507 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Curtiss-Wright Corporation v. Diaz, 507 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Walls v.…
-
Felder v. Heim Corp., 511 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…s. We find no reason to elaborate on the facts or the issues and content ourselves with a parroting of the same two certified questions which we employed in Willer v. Pierce, 505 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), and Carroll v. Volkswagen of America, 508 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), to wit: 1. DOES THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN PULLAM APPLY RETROACTIVELY SO AS TO BAR CAUSES OF ACTION THAT ACCRUED BEFORE THE DATE OF THAT DECISION? 2. SHOULD THE ABOLITION OF THE TWELVE YEAR STATUTE OF REPOSE BY THE LEGISLAT…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hartford Fire Ins. Co. & St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Spreen, 343 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Zordan v. Gerald "Bud" Page, 500 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Clemmons v. Am. States Ins. Co., 412 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Darragh v. Cadwallader Brock & United States Fid. & Guar. Co., Inc., 366 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)