AUDIO APPLICATIONS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY CO., 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.
Audio Applications sought coverage from State Farm for defense of a federal lawsuit arising from an allegedly offensive yellow page advertisement. The court held that State Farm had no duty to defend because the broadened form policy covering advertising injuries was not effective for Audio's policy until its renewal date of April 17, 1990, which was after the advertisement was published in September 1989.
State Farm had no duty to defend because the broadened form policy covering advertising injuries was not effective for Audio's policy until its April 17, 1990 renewal date, which was after the September 1989 advertisement was published. Audio was not entitled to the benefits of the broadened form policy prior to its renewal on April 17, 1990.
[1] An insurer's duty to defend is determined by the terms of the insurance policy in effect at the time of the alleged injury.
[2] An insurer's application to an insurance commissioner for approval of a broadened policy form, specifying effective dates for new and renewal business, dictates when that…
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“The true question before us is not when the broadened form policy applies to Audio's already existing policy, but to which policies it applies.”
Establishes the precise legal question—determining which policies fall within the scope of the broadened form policy's effective date.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn April 1989, State Farm issued Audio a business liability insurance policy running from April 17, 1989 to April 17, 1990, covering personal injury f…
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 Renewal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Audio Applications, Inc. [“Audio”], the insured, sought coverage from its insurer, State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. [“State Farm”], to defend Audio against an action brought in federal court in March of 1990 for injuries allegedly sustained by Lanier Worldwide [“Lanier”] as a result of a yellow page advertisement purchased in September of 1989 by Audio. It was alleged that the advertisement was offensive to Lanier.
In April of 1989, State Farm issued a renewal business liability insurance policy to Audio which included coverage against personal injury resulting from Audio’s advertising activities. The policy period ran from April 17, 1989 to April 17, 1990.
On August 30, 1989, State Farm filed a broadened form policy for approval with the Insurance Commissioner for the State of Florida. The broadened form policy provided coverage for advertising injuries, separate from personal injuries, “... caused by an occurrence committed in the coverage territory during the policy period.” In its application to the Insurance Commissioner for approval of the broadened form policy, State Farm stated: “We respectfully request your approval of our filing to be effective on December 15, 1989 for new business and April 15, 1990 for renewals.” State Farm initially provided Audio with a defense to the Lanier action, but on June 14, 1990, State Farm abandoned its defense of the Lanier action, stating there was no coverage.
On September 11, 1990, Audio commenced this declaratory judgment action against State Farm in state circuit court. Both Audio and State Farm filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court found there was no coverage or duty to defend on the part of State Farm.
The true question before us is not when the broadened form policy applies to Audio’s already existing policy, but to which policies it applies. It is clear from State Farm’s application to the Insurance Commissioner that it was seeking approval to have the broadened form policy apply only to new policies as of December 15, 1989, and to renewal policies as of April 17, 1990. Because Audio’s policy with State Farm was not due to be renewed until April 17, 1990, Audio would not have been entitled, prior to its policy renewal on April 17,1990, to the benefits that the broadened form policy would provide. We affirm the trial court’s entry of summary final judgment on the basis that State Farm had no duty to provide coverage.
Affirmed.