WESTERN WORLD INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
STEVEN SIEGLE, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH STEPHANIE SIEGLE, HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, AND STEPHANIE SIEGLE, INDIVIDUALLY, CHRISTOPHER JAMES, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH DAVID JAMES AND JUDITH E. JAMES, PARENTS AND NEXT FRIENDS, AND DAVID JAMES AND JUDITH E. JAMES, INDIVIDUALLY, AND I.M. SHAPIRO COMPANY, 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.
Western World Insurance appealed a trial court judgment that denied coverage for injuries resulting from a negligent repair service performed months earlier by the insured contractor. The court reversed, holding that the insurance policy's completed operations exclusion applied to bar coverage for claims arising from the defendant's repair and service work.
The court held that the completed operations exclusion applies to the repair and service of the pressure cooker. The repair and service work constituted an 'operation' under the plain meaning of the policy provision, and because bodily injury occurred after the operations were completed and away from the insured's premises, the exclusion barred coverage.
[1] A liability insurance policy exclusion for completed operations applies to claims arising from negligent repair and service of a product after the repair work has been co…
[2] The term "operations" in a completed operations hazard provision of an insurance policy includes repair and service work performed by the insured.
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“"[Cjompleted operations hazard" includes bodily injury and property damage arising out of operations or reliance upon a representation or warranty made at any time with respect hereto, but only if the bodily injury or property damage occurs after such operations have been completed or abandoned and occurs away from premises owned by or rented to the named insured.”
Definition of the completed operations hazard exclusion that is central to the policy interpretation issue.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceI.M. Shapiro Company repaired and serviced a pressure cooker. Several months after the repair and service work was completed, the pressure cooker caug…
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 Insurance Policy Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the trial court’s judgment which held that the appellant’s policy exclusion for completed operations did not apply to a claim made against the appellee I.M. Shapiro Company as a result of its negligent repair and service of a pressure cooker several months before the pressure cooker caught on fire resulting in personal injuries to those nearby.
The liability insurance policy issued to the appellee specifically excludes coverage for bodily injury or property damage included within the completed operations hazard provision of the policy. That provision states:
“[Cjompleted operations hazard” includes bodily injury and property damage arising out of operations or reliance upon a representation or warranty made at any time with respect hereto, but only if the bodily injury or property damage occurs after such operations have been completed or abandoned and occurs away from premises owned by or rented to the named insured. “Operations” include materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection therewith. Operations shall be deemed completed at the earliest of the following times:
(1) when all operations to be performed by or on behalf of the named insured under the contract have been completed,
(2) when all operations to be performed by or on behalf of the named insured at the site of the operations have been completed, or (3) when the portion of the work out of which the injury or damage arises has been put to its intended use by any person or organization other than another contractor or subcontractor engaged in performing operations for a principal as a part of the same project.
Operations which may require further service or maintenance work, or correction, repair or replacement because of any defect or deficiency, but which are otherwise complete, shall be deemed completed.
Under a plain reading of this provision we believe the appellee’s repair and service of the pressure cooker in question was an “operation” within the meaning of the word “operations” used in the provision. We reject appellee’s claim that “operations” include only “materials, parts or equipment.” See Sandpiper Construction Co. v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 348 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).
ANSTEAD and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., and SALMON, MICHAEL H., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Associated Elec. & GAS Ins. Servs., Ltd. v. Houston OIL & GAS Co., 552 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…26 (Fla.1973) (products-completed operation hazard did not op [*1113] erate to deny coverage to general contractor who provided a service and was not a manufacturer or seller of goods when brick wall injured child); Western World Ins. Co. v. Siegle, 518 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (insured’s repair and service of a pressure cooker constituted an “operation” within the “completed operations hazard” section of liability insurance policy); Miller Elec. (where electrical contractor completed work, products-haz…
Authorities Cited
- Sandpiper Constr. Co., Inc. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 348 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)