BAL HARBOUR CLUB, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
RANGER 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.
Florida public policy prohibits insurance coverage for losses resulting from intentional acts of religious discrimination, and summary judgment for the insurer was properly entered where the insured's conduct was undisputed intentional discrimination.
An insurer is not required to provide coverage under an insurance policy for losses resulting from the insured's intentional act of religious discrimination.
[1] Florida public policy prohibits an insured from obtaining indemnification under an insurance policy for a loss resulting from the insured's intentional act of religious d…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBal Harbour Club obtained an insurance policy from Ranger Insurance Company. The Club engaged in intentional religious discrimination, resulting in a …
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 Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This case reappears here following the Florida Supreme Court’s determination that Florida public policy prohibits an insured from being indemnified for a loss resulting from an intentional act of religious discrimination. Ranger Ins. Co. v. Bal Harbour Club, 549 So. 2d 1005 (Fla.1989). On remand for further consistent proceedings, the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Ranger Insurance Company finding that there is no insurance coverage under the policy of insurance issued by Ranger to Bal Harbour Club for the incident involved in these proceedings. We affirm.
At no time during the course of the litigation or in any of the appeals did the Club raise a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of intentional religious discrimination.
Moreover, both this court and the Florida Supreme Court classified the con duct of the Club as intentional religious discrimination. Ranger Ins. Co. v. Bal Harbour Club, Inc., 549 So. 2d 1005 (Fla.1989); Ranger Ins. Co. v. Bal Harbour Club, Inc., 509 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), quashed on other grounds, 549 So. 2d 1005 (Fla.1989).
Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court, on remand, properly entered summary judgment in favor of Ranger. See Sax Enters. Inc. v. David & Dash, 107 So. 2d 612 (Fla.1958) (if particular holding is implicit in decision rendered by appellate court, then it is no longer open for discussion or consideration); Buckley v. City of Miami Beach, 559 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (same); Goodman v. Olsen, 365 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (same), cert. denied, 376 So. 2d 74 (Fla.1979).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- SAX Enters., Inc. v. David & Dash, Inc., 107 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 1958)
- Ranger Ins. Co. v. BAL Harbour Club, Inc., 549 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 1989)
- Goodman v. Olsen, 365 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Buckley v. City OF Miami Beach, 559 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Ranger Ins. Co. v. BAL Harbour Club, Inc., 509 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)