AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
JACK GRISS, RESPONDENT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Homeowner'S Insurance Policy cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We review Griss v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 554 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), in which the district court certified the following question as one of great public importance:
[W]hether the use of deadly force in self-defense constitutes intentional conduct causing harm to another within the exclusion-from-coverage provision of a homeowner’s insurance policy.
Id. at 557. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We recently addressed this question in State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Marshall, 554 So. 2d 504 (Fla.1989), where we aligned ourselves with the majority of jurisdictions, holding that self-defense is not an exception to an insurance policy’s intentional-acts exclusion.
Accordingly, we answer the certified question in the affirmative and quash the decision of the district court below.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, ehrlich, barkett, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., 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)…ity rejected this argument and held that the clear terms of the policy controlled. Because the insured’s intent to injure was intentional, we held that the insured’s actions were excluded from coverage. See also Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Griss, 568 So. 2d 903 (Fla.1990) (following Marshall). Marshall was consistent with a line of cases in which courts have precluded coverage where an insured intentionally strikes an intended victim, by, for example, aiming a firearm at that person and pulling the trigger…
-
Cabezas v. Fla. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 830 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…668 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Even if such acts were deemed to be in self defense, which appears to be Helms’ argument, such acts would still be excluded from coverage under the intentional acts exclusion. Id.; see also Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. v. Griss, 568 So. 2d 903, 904 (Fla.1990); State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Marshall, 554 So. 2d 504, 505 (FIa.1989). Cabezas cites Prudential Prop, and Cas. Ins. Co. v. Sunndal, 622 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 1993) for support that the intentional injury exclusion does not apply wher…
Authorities Cited
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Marshall, 554 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 1989)
- Griss v. AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co., 554 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)