JAMES H. BLOCK, APPELLANT,
v.
FIREMAN'S FUND 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.
A veterinarian's liability insurance policy did not cover negligence claims arising from employment decisions, such as requiring an employee to return to work prematurely and failing to provide protective equipment. The court affirmed that the policy's coverage was limited to professional veterinary malpractice, not general business negligence.
The insurance policy's coverage provision is unambiguously limited to acts of professional malpractice or negligence committed as a veterinarian and does not cover general negligent business decisions regarding employee employment conditions. The policy does not cover employment-related decisions such as when an employee must return to work or whether protective equipment should be provided.
[1] An insurance policy provision obligating the insurer to pay for injuries arising out of "malpractice, negligent act or omission...in rendering or failing to render profes…
[2] An insurance policy does not cover an insured veterinarian for business decisions made with reference to an employee concerning employment conditions, such as when an emp…
Previewing 2 of 3 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 subject insurance coverage provision, when read as a whole, is unambiguously limited to acts of professional malpractice or negligence committed by the insured as a veterinarian and does not, as urged, cover any negligent act, of whatever nature, he may commit in connection with operating his office”
Establishes the primary holding that professional liability policies are narrowly limited to professional acts, not general business operations.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames Block, a veterinarian, was sued by an employee who sustained a hand injury from a cat bite at Block's office. The employee's complaint alleged 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 Professional Malpractice cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a final declaratory decree finding no liability insurance cover age for the plaintiff/insured James Block, a veterinarian, and no duty to defend a negligence action brought against Block by one of Block’s employees arising out of an injury sustained by the employee when a cat bit the employee’s hand at the veterinarian’s office. The complaint filed in the action alleged that (a) Block negligently forced the employee to return to work before a prior hand injury of the employee had been healed, and (b) did not provide the employee with protective gloves for handling animals. The liability insurance policy in question obligated the defendant Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. to pay on behalf of the plaintiff/insured Block all sums which Block was legally obligated to pay because of injuries arising out of “[a]ny malpractice, negligent act or omission ... in rendering or failing to render professional services or otherwise resulting from the insured’s status as a veterinarian,” and to defend all suits which make such a claim against the plaintiff/insured.
We affirm the declaratory decree under review because the subject insurance coverage provision, when read as a whole, is unambiguously limited to acts of professional malpractice or negligence committed by the insured as a veterinarian and does not, as urged, cover any negligent act, of whatever nature, he may commit in connection with operating his office. In particular, the insurance policy clearly does not cover the insured for a business decision, as here, which he makes with reference to one of his employees concerning the conditions of employment, i.e., when an employee must return to work after a sick leave and whether protective gloves should be provided to an employee when handling animals. International Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Seagrave House, Inc., 572 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 5th DCA1990); Koenigsberg v. Intercontinental Ins. Co., 571 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 4th DCA1990); American Motorists Ins. Co. v. Farrey’s Wholesale Hardware Co., Inc., 507 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 518 So. 2d 1274 (Fla.1987); Hess v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 458 So. 2d 71, 72 (Fla. 3d DCA1984); Saha v. Aetna Casualty & Sur. Co., 427 So. 2d 316, 317 (Fla. 5th DCA1983).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Physicians Protective Tr. Fund v. Gulf Atl. Ins. Co., 725 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Block v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 609 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); United States Fidelity & Guarantee Co. v. Buckner, 425 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Parthenon Ins. Co. v. Benitez, 416 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); see Sherman v. Ambassador Ins. Co., 670 F. 2d 251 (D.C. Cir.1981).…
Authorities Cited
- Hess v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 458 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Asis Saha and Barbara A. Saha v. The AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co., 427 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Am. Motorists Ins. Co. v. Farrey's Wholesale Hardware Co., Inc., 507 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Murray Koenigsberg and Clara Koenigsberg v. Intercontinental Ins. Co., 571 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Int'l Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Seagrave House, Inc., 572 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)