HENRY C. LAMBERT, APPELLANT,
v.
ALLSTATE 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.
Lambert appeals a summary judgment denying insurance coverage under his homeowners policy for a drowning death on his property. The court reversed, finding the record presented a disputed material fact regarding whether the drowning claim fell under the policy's business pursuit exclusion.
The court held that summary judgment was improper because a genuine dispute of material fact existed concerning whether the business pursuit exclusion applied, requiring reversal and remand for further proceedings.
[1] A summary final judgment is precluded when a disputed issue of material fact exists.
[2] A business pursuit exclusion in an insurance policy applies to conduct primarily undertaken in furtherance of a business interest.
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 business pursuit exclusion in the homeowners policy must be assessed in light of the relationship of the alleged negligence to the appellant's business activities.”
Establishes the legal standard for analyzing whether the exclusion applies
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLambert was sued for negligence in connection with a child's death by drowning in a small pond located on his property between his residence and a ren…
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 Genuine Dispute Of Material Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
ALLEN, Judge.
The appellant challenges a summary final judgment entered for the appellee upon a determination that coverage was not provided under a contract of insurance. We find that there is a disputed issue of material fact which precludes the entry of a summary judgment.
The appellant was named as the defendant in a negligence action brought upon the death of a child who allegedly drowned in a small pond on the appellant’s property. The appellant filed a third party action against the appellee, asserting that insurance coverage was provided under a homeowners policy. The appellee maintained that the claim was not covered due to a business pursuit exclusion in the policy. Various depositions indicate that the pond is located between the appellant’s private residence and a rented mobile home which was the child’s residence. The mobile home was within a mobile home park owned by the appellant. The residents of the mobile home park were allowed some use of the several bodies of water on the property, but the appellant restricted the use of the small pond in which the child drowned.
The business pursuit exclusion in the homeowners policy must be assessed in light of the relationship of the alleged negligence to the appellant’s business activities. See generally, Landis v. Allstate Ins. Co., 546 So. 2d 1051 (Fla.1989). The exclusion applies to conduct which is primarily undertaken in furtherance of a business interest. See Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Miller, 549 So. 2d 1200 (Fla.3d DCA 1989); Otero v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 314 So. 2d 208 (Fla.Sd DCA 1975), cert. denied, 328 So. 2d 843 (Fla.1976). The record in the present case is somewhat ambiguous as to this issue of material fact. Summary judgment is appropriate only if there is no genuine dispute as to any issue of material fact. See e.g., Taylor v. Kenco Chemical & Manufacturing Corp., 465 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510(c). All doubts and inferences must be resolved against the entry of a summary judgment. Taylor; Furlong v. First National Bank of Hialeah, 329 So. 2d 406 (Fla.3d DCA), cert. denied, 341 So. 2d 291 (Fla.1976).
Because the record in this case presents a disputed issue of material fact, the court should not have entered a summary judgment. The order is therefore reversed, and the cause is remanded.
SMITH and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Michael Scheer, M.D. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 708 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…siness pursuits exclusion. That exclusion applies to conduct “primarily taken in furtherance of a business interest,” and it must be assessed in light of the relationship of the alleged conduct to the business activity. Lambert v. Allstate Ins. Co., 593 So. 2d 1172, 1173 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (citing Landis v. Allstate Ins. Co., 546 So. 2d 1051 (Fla.1989)). The acts alleged against Dr. Scheer, which included touching co-employees’ breasts and buttocks, did not arise out of his profession. See Farmers Ins. Group…
-
Martinez v. Bankers Ins. Co., 700 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…ther than to the actual instrument causing the alleged injury. In the case before us, the negligent supervision alleged is a voluntary nonbusiness activity of the Mar-tinezes. The second case upon which we rely is Lambert v. Allstate Insurance Co., 593 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). This case arose when a child, who was a resident of a mobile home park owned by the defendant, drowned in a pond next to the park on land also owned by the defendant. In reversing the summary judgment granted on the business pur…
Authorities Cited
- Landis v. Allstate Ins. Co., 546 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 1989)
- Taylor v. Kenco Chem. & MFG. Corp. & Emerald Mfg. Co., Inc., 465 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Furlong v. First Nat'l Bank OF Hialeah, 329 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Rosalina Otero v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 314 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Joshua Miller, M.D., 549 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)