COMMUNITY BANK OF HOMESTEAD, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
AMERICAN STATES 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.
An aircraft insurance policy naming a bank as having an "additional interest" affords the bank the right to maintain an independent action as an intended third-party beneficiary.
[1] An aircraft insurance policy naming a bank as having an "additional interest" may afford the bank the right to maintain an independent action as an intended third-party b…
[2] A trial court errs by rendering summary judgment before providing a party an opportunity to establish facts entitling them to coverage under an insurance policy.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA bank loaned money for an airplane purchase, requiring the plane as collateral and insurance naming the bank as loss payee. The plane went missing, 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 Loss Payee cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Community Bank of Homestead appeals from a final summary judgment. We reverse.
Stanley R. Bateman obtained a loan from the bank to purchase an airplane. The aircraft became collateral for the loan. The bank required Bateman to insure the aircraft and make it the loss payee under the terms of the insurance policy. The policy that was ultimately issued named Bateman as the insured and the bank as having an “additional interest” under certain provisions of the policy.
Some time later, Bateman reported the plane missing from its hangar. Both Bate-man and the bank demanded payment from the American States Insurance Company, but the insurer denied coverage. The bank then commenced this action against Ameri-can States and Bateman, who had by then defaulted on the note. The insurer filed a general answer and raised certain affirmative defenses. After intermediate discovery, the bank and the insurer filed cross-motions for summary judgment. American States’s motion was granted. The bank appeals.
We hold that this aircraft insurance policy providing, inter alia, coverage to the bank as an “additional insured” under certain portions of the policy, afforded the bank the right to maintain an independent action as an intended third-party beneficiary. Leasing Serv. Corp. v. American Motorists Ins. Co., 496 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), review denied, 508 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1987); Ran Investments, Inc. v. Indiana Ins. Co., 379 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); see Schlehuber v. Norfolk & Dedham Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 281 So. 2d 373, 375 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 288 So. 2d 259 (Fla.1973). It was, therefore, error for the trial court to render judgment before providing the bank with an opportunity to establish whether the facts regarding the airplane’s loss are such as to entitled it to coverage pursuant to the terms of the policy-
For this reason, the summary judgment in favor of the insurance company and against the bank is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
DeMAY v. Dependable Ins. Co., 638 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…ough the DeMays are subject to those defenses, such a loss payee clause has been construed to confer upon the loss payee third-party beneficiary standing to bring an action against the insurer. See Community Bank of Homestead v. Am. States Ins. Co., 524 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Leasing Service Corp. v. Am. Motorist Ins. Co., 496 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), review denied, 508 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1987). The trial court, therefore, erred in dismissing the De-Mays’ complaint with prejudice on that ground.…
-
Aldridge v. Peak Prop. & Cas. Ins. Corp., 873 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…ight under the insurance policy to the relief sought in their complaint, the trial court correctly entered summary judgment in favor of Peak. Affirmed. KELLY, J., Concurs. SALCINES, J., Dissents with opinion. . See Cmty. Bank v. Am. States Ins., 524 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); W.R. Schlehuber v. Norfolk & Dedham Mut. Fire Ins., 281 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973).…
Authorities Cited
- Schlehuber v. Norfolk & Dedham Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 281 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Leasing Serv. Corp. v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., 496 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- RAN Invs., Inc. v. Ind. Ins. Co., 379 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- The Heritage Corp. OF S. Fla. v. Magnes, 288 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 1973)