JAMES HARTNETT AND BLANCHE HARTNETT, APPELLANTS,
v.
SOUTHERN 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.
James Hartnett claimed for the loss of his automobile that disappeared from his home, but the court affirmed summary judgment against him because his insurance policy did not include theft coverage, which he had not purchased or paid premiums for.
Hartnett cannot recover because the policy's specific provisions for theft coverage (Coverage D) were not purchased by him, and his claim falls squarely within the excluded coverage. The terms of the policy are not ambiguous and require no interpretation.
“appellant is attempting to recover the value of his automobile lost as the result of a theft or disappearance, whereas from the face of the policy of insurance, it affirmatively appears that the appellant did not purchase or pay premiums for such coverage”
Establishes the fundamental problem with Hartnett's claim—he is seeking recovery for a peril he did not insure against.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHartnett owned an automobile insured by Southern Insurance Company. The automobile disappeared from his home and was never recovered. Hartnett had pur…
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 Insurance Claim Denial cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, owner of an automobile insured by appellee, made claim for the loss thereof when the automobile disappeared from appellant’s home. The automobile has never been recovered. The appellant purchased insurance coverage and paid premiums for coverage under items listed in the policy as "Coverage A,” “Coverage B,” and “Coverage G.1” Coverage under item “D 2” listed in the policy was not purchased by appellant, nor did he pay a premium for that coverage. After the disappearance of appellant’s automobile, he reported it to the police and to the appellee insurer, subsequently making claim for the loss by reason of the disappearance. After demand by appellant for payment of his loss and appellee’s refusal, this action was instituted. After depositions and interrogatories, the appellee moved for and was granted a summary judgment. This appeal followed.
The appellee contends this case is controlled by the holding in Frank v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., Fla.App.1959, 109 So.2d 594. The appellant just as strenuously contends to the contrary and attempts to distinguish the Frank Case from the case at bar.
Without deciding which of the two contentions is correct, we point out that appellant is attempting to recover the value of his automobile lost as the result of a theft or disappearance, whereas from the face of the policy of insurance, it affirmatively appears that the appellant did not purchase or pay premiums for such coverage. Since the specific provisions of the policy (Coverage D) which the appellant did not purchase provide for the payment of loss of or damage to an automobile caused by theft, larceny, robbery or pilferage, the appellant is in no position to claim this advantage under the policy. He purchased insurance covering collision and upset and direct and accidental loss of or damage to the automobile, but not loss caused by a theft. His claim in this instance was excluded under the terms of the *441policy and its terms are not ambiguous nor does it require any interpretation.
*440“Coverage G — [not material to decision in this case]” [Emphasis supplied.]
*441It follows that the judgment appealed should be and is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hartnett v. S. Ins. Co., 181 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 1965)…t of Appeal is quashed and this cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views here expressed. It is so ordered. ROBERTS, O’CONNELL and ERVIN, JJ., and JOHNSON, District Judge, concur. THORNAL, C. J., and THOMAS, J., dissent. . 171 So. 2d 439. . This policy was attached to and made a part of the complaint helow. . The Attorney General was allowed, on behalf of the State Treasurer and ex-officio Insurance Commissioner, to appear and file a brief as Amicus Curiae here. The following obse…
-
Hartnett v. S. Ins. Co., 181 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…PER CURIAM. Whereas, the judgment of this court was entered on February 9, 1965 (171 So. 2d 439), affirming the summary judgment of the Civil Court of Record in and for Dade County, Florida, in the above styled cause; and Whereas, on review of this court’s judgment by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida, by its opinion and judgment filed…
Authorities Cited
- Frank v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 109 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)