LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
LONE STAR INDUSTRIES, INC., RESPONDENT
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 Supreme Court quashed the Third District Court of Appeal's decision because it relied on Dimmitt I, which was reversed by Dimmitt II holding that 'sudden and accidental' in pollution exclusion clauses is not ambiguous as a matter of law.
The term 'sudden and accidental' in pollution exclusion clauses is not ambiguous as a matter of law, and decisions relying on the contrary holding in Dimmitt I must be reconsidered.
[1] A decision of a lower court must be quashed and remanded when it relies on a precedent that has been reversed by controlling authority.
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 intelligenceLiberty Mutual Insurance Company sought review of a Third District Court of Appeal decision in a case involving insurance coverage and a pollution exc…
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 Pollution Exclusion Clause cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We review Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Lone Star Industries, Inc., 17 Fla.L.Weekly D2215, 1992 WL 235281 (Fla. 3d DCA Sept. 22,1992), in which the court predicated its decision on this Court’s ruling in Dimmitt Chevrolet, Inc. v. Southeastern Fidelity Insurance Corp., 17 Fla.L.Weekly S579, (Fla. Sept. 3, 1992), rev’d on rehearing, 636 So. 2d 700 (Fla.1993), which held that the term “sudden and accidental” as contained in the pollution exclusion clause is ambiguous as a matter of law (Dimmitt I). Upon rehearing, this Court reversed its position and held that the term “sudden and accidental” was not ambiguous. Dimmitt Chevrolet, Inc. v. Southeastern Fidelity Insurance Corp., 636 So. 2d 700 (Fla.1993) (Dimmitt II). Thus, we have jurisdiction of the pending case under article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution.
In view of the fact that the controlling law as set forth in Dimmitt II directly conflicts with the rationale of Dimmitt I on which the court below relied, we hereby quash the decision of the district court of appeal. We remand the case to that court for resolution of such other issues as may be involved.
It is so ordered.
GRIMES, C.J., and SHAW, KOGAN, HARDING and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. OVERTON, J., dissents.
WELLS, J., recused.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lone Star Indus., Inc., 661 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…[*1219] PER CURIAM. In Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Lone Star Industries, Inc., 17 Fla.L. Weekly D2215 (Fla. 3d DCA Sept. 22,1992), decision quashed by, 648 So. 2d 114 (Fla.1994), the defendant, Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. [Liberty Mutual], appealed from a non-final order granting the plaintiffs, Lone Star Industries, Inc. [Lone Star], motion for partial summary judgment and ruling that Liberty Mutual was obligat…1 / 3
-
Lone Star Indus., Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 688 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…nother to carry its supersedeas bond did not create a taxable cost in the form of a bond premium within the meaning of Rule 9.400(a)(3) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Reversed. . See Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Lone Star Indus., Inc., 648 So. 2d 114 (Fla.1994); Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Lone Star Indus., Inc., 661 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), rev. denied, 671 So. 2d 788 (Fla.1996).…
Authorities Cited
- Dimmitt Chevrolet, Inc. v. Se. Fid. Ins. Corp., 636 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1993)