STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
ARTHUR W. NICKELSON AND MELVINEE NICKELSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS OF NIKKI W. NICKELSON, A MINOR, APPELLEES
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.
The court held that the interpretation of an insurance contract, particularly regarding policy exclusions, is a question of law for the court, not the jury, when facts are undisputed.
State Farm sought review of a jury verdict in a declaratory relief action concerning coverage under a homeowner's policy. The Nickelsons requested a d…
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 Question Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
WOLF, Judge.
Appellant, State Farm Fire and Casualty (State Farm), seeks review of a jury verdict in a declaratory relief action. Appellees, the Nickelsons, requested a declaration of coverage under a homeowner’s policy issued by State Farm to a third party in whose home their daughter, Nikki, was injured. The trial court denied State Farm’s motion for summary judgment and directed verdict and submitted the issue of whether certain exclusions precluded coverage to the jury. We reverse.
Generally, interpretation of an insurance contract is a question of law to be decided by the trial court. Lee v. Montgomery, 624 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Where, as here, the facts are essentially undisputed, whether those facts fit within the policy definition is a question of law that may be decided on appellate review. Row v. United Services Automobile Association, 474 So. 2d 348, 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Based on our careful reading of the policy and the facts of this ease, we find, as a matter of law, that coverage for the injury to Nikki Nickel-son was precluded under the child care exclusion.
We conclude that the trial court erred in submitting this issue to the jury. Accordingly the case is remanded with directions for the trial judge to enter judgment in favor of State Farm.
BENTON and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Siegle v. Progressive Consumers Ins. Co., 788 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…uction of the insurance contract and the determination of whether Florida law requires the insurer to provide coverage for diminished value are questions of law subject to de novo review on appeal. See State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. [*358] Nickelson, 677 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Nevertheless, we begin our analysis with the trial judge’s reasoning. As support for her dismissal of the complaint, the trial judge relied on Morrison v. Allstate Indemnity, No. 98-377-CIVJ-20C, 1999 WL 817660 (M.D.Fla. Sept.9,…
-
Granada Ins. Co. v. Ricks, 12 So. 3d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…(Fla.2005); Koikos v. Travelers Ins. Co., 849 So. 2d 263, 266 (Fla.2003); Jones v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 463 So. 2d 1153, 1157 (Fla. 1985); Smith v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 231 So. 2d 193, 194 (Fla. 1970); State Farm Fire & Cas. v. Nickelson, 677 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Ellenwood v. S. United Life Ins. Co., 373 So. 2d 392, 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).…
-
Vogelsang v. Allstate Ins., 46 F. Supp. 2d 1319 (S.D. Fla. 1999)…alls within the coverage of an insurance policy is one of law that may be decided by the court. Standard Venetian Blind Co. v. American Empire Ins. Co., 503 Pa. 300, 305, 469 A.2d 563, 566 (1983); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Nickelson, 677 So.2d 37 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). POLICY TERMS The following policy terms are those on which Vogelsang rests his coverage argument. Liabilities Covered We will pay on behalf of persons insured all sums which they become legally obligated to pay a…
Authorities Cited
- LEE v. Montgomery, 624 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- A.W. ROW, III v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 474 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)