STATE AUTO MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
LARRY SCROGGINS, ET AL., 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.
State Auto Mutual Insurance Company appealed a summary judgment that found a homeowners insurance policy covered a tort claim arising from an intentional act by the insured. The court reversed, holding that the policy's exclusion for bodily injury "intended by the insured" applies when the insured intentionally causes a fall, regardless of whether the resulting serious injury was unintended.
The court held that the policy exclusion for bodily injury "intended by the insured" applies to the intentional act of pulling a chair out from under a victim, even though the resulting serious injury was unintended. Additionally, the court found that notice given nearly two and one-half years after the incident could not satisfy the policy requirement of providing notice "as soon as practicable."
[1] An insurer may deny coverage under a homeowners policy if the insured's actions were intended, even if the resulting injury was unintended.
[2] Pulling a chair out from under a person is an intentional act for purposes of an insurance policy exclusion for "bodily injury... …
Previewing 2 of 5 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“bodily injury ... intended by the insured”
The policy exclusion provision at issue, which the court found applicable to Scroggins's intentional act of pulling the chair.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn August 13, 1983, Larry Scroggins pulled a chair out from under Ernest Durden at a pool hall, causing Durden to fall and suffer personal injuries. 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 Timeliness Of Notice cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
State Auto Mutual Insurance Company appeals from an adverse summary judgment finding that a tort claim by the appel-lees, Ernest Durden and Evelyn Durden, his wife, is covered under a homeowners insurance policy issued by the company to the appellee, Larry Scroggins. We reverse.
On August 13, 1983, Durden and Scrog-gins met for a drink with friends at Charlie’s Pool Hall in Orlando, Florida. Durden left the table where they were sitting and upon his return Scroggins pulled the chair out from under him as he sat down. Dur-den fell and suffered personal injuries.
The Durdens filed an action against Scroggins seeking damages for these injuries on October 17, 1985. State Auto received notice of the incident on January 27, 1986. Thereafter, State Auto filed an action for declaratory relief against Scrog-gins and the Durdens seeking a determination of the parties’ rights under the homeowners policy it had issued to Scroggins prior to the incident. State Auto contended that Scroggins violated the terms and conditions of the policy by failing to notify the company of the incident until nearly three years after it occurred and that coverage should be excluded because Scroggins’s actions were “expected or intended.”
Both the Durdens and State Auto filed motions for summary judgment. The Dur-dens’ motion contended that Scroggins’s conduct was not of the type which is excluded under the homeowners policy. State Auto’s motion contended that Scrog-gins, although immediately aware of the serious injuries, failed to give timely notice of the incident and therefore failed to comply with a condition precedent to coverage under the policy. The trial court granted the Durdens’ motion for summary judgment and entered a final judgment finding coverage. State Auto’s motion was denied. The issues on appeal are the intent of the insured as contemplated by the policy exclusion and the apparent violation of the notice provisions of the policy.
In regard to the second issue, we agree with State Auto that the trial court could not determine, as a matter of law, that the policy requirement of “notice ... as soon as practicable” was satisfied by notice given nearly two and one-half years after the incident at issue. More importantly, and ultimately dispositive of the action filed below, we find that the exclusion section in the homeowners policy issued to Scroggins — “bodily injury ... intended by the insured” — is applicable to the intentional act of pulling a chair out from under a victim in order to see him fall. The fact that an unintended serious injury resulted from the intended fall is irrelevant to the issue of coverage. See Clemmons v. American States Insurance Company, 412 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 419 So. 2d 1196 (Fla.1982). REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR ENTRY OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR STATE AUTO.
ORFINGER and COBB, JJ., and LEE, R.E., JR., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Swindal, 622 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 1993)…gressive conduct. It only excludes coverage for ‘bodily injury expected or intended by the insured.’ ” Prudential II, 599 So. 2d at 1317. Our analysis is consistent with the district court’s decision in State Auto Mutual Insurance Co. v. Scroggins, 529 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). There, the court applied an insurance policy’s intentional injury exclusion clause to preclude coverage when the insured intentionally pulled the chair out from under the injured party as he sat down, apparently intending to see…
-
AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co., Inc. v. Joshua Miller, M.D., 550 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…entionally tugged on both ends of the stethoscope draped around Dr. Vinsant’s neck. That he did not intend to cause the resulting physical injury does not avoid the policy’s intentional act exclusion. See e.g., State Auto Mut. Ins. Co. v. Scroggins, 529 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (practical joke of pulling a chair out from under a plaintiff is intentional conduct and not an accident for insurance purposes; the fact that unintended serious injury resulted from the intended fall is irrelevant to the issue o…
-
United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Selz, 637 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…ia. Id. 517 A. 2d at 987.2 Florida follows the former, majority interpretation. In Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Swindal, 622 So. 2d 467, 472-73 (Fla.1993), the supreme court discussed State Auto Mutual Insurance Co. v. Scroggins, 529 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), in which the insured intentionally pulled a chair out from under someone as that person went to sit down. The supreme court explained that insurance coverage was properly excluded under an intentional injury clause because “[sjo…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Clemmons v. Am. States Ins. Co., 412 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)