STEVE SAKS, APPELLANT,
v.
NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANY, A MICHIGAN CORPORATION, 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.
In this second appeal of a dispute over horse insurance coverage, the court affirmed summary judgment for the insurer, holding that a policy exclusion for losses from mysterious disappearance induced by fraudulent schemes barred recovery where the insured horse disappeared while under the care of an entity to whom it had been entrusted.
Summary judgment was proper because the policy's exclusionary clause clearly barred recovery for losses resulting from mysterious disappearance induced by fraudulent schemes or trickery. The jury's finding that the loss arose from mysterious disappearance induced by a fraudulent scheme, combined with the exclusionary language in the policy, precluded recovery as a matter of law.
[1] An insurance policy exclusion for "mysterious disappearance" applies when the loss results from the insured or others to whom the animal was entrusted being induced by a…
[2] Summary judgment is proper when the facts established at trial and the terms of an insurance policy demonstrate that there can be no recovery as a matter of law.
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“any loss arising from mysterious disappearance, escape, or voluntary parting of possession or title to the animal(s) as a result of the insured (or others to whom the animals may have been entrusted) being induced by a fraudulent scheme, trickery or similar false pretenses or consequential loss”
The exact language of the policy exclusion that barred recovery
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSteve Saks owned a horse named Sahr Hal Sahr that he entrusted to Harvard Farms, Inc. While in Harvard Farms' care, the horse mysteriously disappeared…
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 Exclusion Clause Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is the second time this case appeared before this comí; after entry of summary judgment. Harvard Farms, Inc. v. Nat’l Casualty Co., 555 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 3d DCA1990). The background of the mysterious disappearance of the horse, Sahr Hal Sahr, is set forth in our previous opinion.
After remanding the case for trial on the issue of whether the insurance policy covered the loss of the horse, Sahr Hal Sahr, the jury returned a verdict adverse to Harvard Farms, Inc. (Harvard Farms). The trial court granted a mistrial with respect to appellant Saks, the owner of the horse, due to a hung jury. Thereafter, National Casualty (National) and Saks moved for summary judgment. National’s motion asserted that there could be no recovery for Saks for the loss of the horse under the facts established at trial, and the terms of the policy as a matter of law. The trial court entered final summary judgment in favor of appellee, National, and against Saks. We affirm.
The insurance policy issued by National excluded losses arising from any mysterious disappearance under the following clause:
any loss arising from mysterious disappearance, escape, or voluntary parting of possession or title to the animal(s) as a result of the insured (or others to whom the animals may have been entrusted) being induced by a fraudulent scheme, trickery or similar false pretenses or consequential loss.
Under a practical and sensible interpretation of this exclusionary clause, it is clear that summary judgment was proper in this case.
At trial, the jury found that the loss resulted from “mysterious disappearance, escape, or voluntary parting of possession or title to the horse induced by a fraudulent scheme, trickery or similar false pretenses on the part of Harvard Farms, or others to whom the horse may have been entrusted.” Saks established that he entrusted the horse to Harvard Farms, and the horse disappeared while under Harvard Farms’ care. Since the policy excluded such a mysterious disappearance, the exclusionary clause barred Saks’ recovery as a matter of law.
Insurance policies must be given practical, sensible interpretations in accordance with the natural meaning of the words employed. Simmons v. Provident Mut. Life Ins. Co., 496 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA1986); Hess v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 458 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 3d DCA1984); New Hampshire Ins. Co. v. Carter, 359 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 1st DCA1978). A sensible reading of the insurance clause when applied to the facts of this case precludes Saks from being compensated for the loss of the horse.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hess v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 458 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- NEW Hampshire Ins. Co. v. Carter, 359 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Simmons v. Provident Mut. Life Ins. Co. OF Philadelphia, 496 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Hiram Collazo v. Gomolinsky, 496 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Harvard Farms, Inc. v. Nat'l Cas. Co., 555 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)