CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
TERRY CHARLESTON, TERESA CHARLESTON, FLORIDIN COMPANY, INC., AND DUPONT TRUCKING, INC., JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, 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.
Continental Casualty Company appeals a summary judgment ruling that it had a duty to defend Floridin Company in a negligence action arising from an automobile accident involving Continental's insured, Dupont Trucking. The court affirmed, holding that the duty to defend arose because the complaint's allegations indicated Floridin potentially qualified as an additional insured under the policy.
Continental had a duty to defend Floridin because a fair reading of the complaint revealed facts indicating Floridin potentially qualified as an additional insured under the policy, which provided broad coverage to "anyone" liable for Dupont's conduct.
[1] An insurer's duty to defend an insured arises when a fair reading of the complaint reveals facts indicating potential coverage under the policy.
[2] A party may qualify for coverage as an additional insured under a policy if the complaint alleges facts demonstrating a high degree of control over the named insured's ac…
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“Appellant's duty to defend Floridin arose because a fair reading of the complaint revealed facts, such as Floridin's high degree of control over Dupont's activities, indicating that the policy would potentially cover Floridin's liability.”
Establishes the standard for determining duty to defend based on complaint allegations rather than actual facts.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFloridin, a mining company, engaged Dupont Trucking to transport material under contract. An automobile accident occurred involving a motorist and Dup…
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 Potential Coverage cases and more on FLexlaw
BOOTH, Judge.
This cause is before us on appeal from the trial court’s entry of summary judgment for Appellee Floridin. Floridin, a mining company, filed a third-party complaint against Appellant, an insurance company, claiming that Appellant had a duty to defend Floridin in a previously filed negligence action against Floridin and Dupont Trucking (Appellant’s named insured) which arose out of an automobile accident between a motorist (plaintiff) and Dupont, while Dupont was transporting material under its contract with Floridin. The trial court entered summary judgment for Floridin, ruling that Appellant had a duty to defend Floridin in the negligence action.
On appeal, Appellant argues that it did not have a duty to defend Floridin because, under the actual facts of the primary case, Floridin did not qualify for coverage as an additional insured under the Dupont/Appel-lant policy.
We hold, however, that Appellant’s duty to defend Floridin arose because a fair reading of the complaint revealed facts, such as Floridin’s high degree of control over Dupont’s activities, indicating that the policy would potentially cover Floridin’s liability. The law is well settled on this point. National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Lenox Liquors, Inc., 358 So. 2d 533, 536 (Fla.1977); Fun Spree Vacations, Inc. v. Orion Ins. Co., 659 So. 2d 419, 421 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Psychiatric Assoc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 647 So. 2d 134, 137 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Grissom v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 610 So. 2d 1299, 1306-07 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), rev. denied, 621 So. 2d 1065 (Fla.1993); Baron Oil Co. v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 470 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
Thus, the trial court properly entered summary judgment for Appellee Floridin.
We note that Nateman v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 544 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 3d DCA)(holding that facts, and not the allegations in the complaint, may be relied upon when determining whether there is a duty to defend), rev. denied, 553 So. 2d 1166 (Fla.1989), is distinguishable from the instant case. In Nateman, the appellate court applied an exception to the well-settled rule because, under the facts in Nateman, 544 So. 2d at 1028, there was “no room for doubt” that the appellant was not insured and, thus, the insurer did not have a duty to defend.
In contrast, in the instant case Floridin is potentially an additional insured under the policy based on the allegations in the complaint and the broad policy coverage provided to “anyone” liable for Dupont’s conduct. Summary judgment is hereby AFFIRMED.
JOANOS and WOLF, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- The Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Lenox Liquors, Inc., 358 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 1977)
- Baron OIL Co. v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 470 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Grissom v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 610 So. 2d 1299 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- FUN Spree Vacations, Inc. v. The Orion Ins. Co., 659 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- H. Richard Nateman, M.D. v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 544 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Psychiatric Assocs. v. ST. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 647 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)