STERLING INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
EDNA HUGHES AND HERBERT HUGHES, AND N & B CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, D/B/A STRATH HAVEN HOTEL, 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.
Sterling Insurance Company appeals a summary judgment requiring it to pay $6,000 in punitive damages awarded against its insured in an assault and battery case. The court held that the assault qualified as an accident under the liability policy and that public policy does not prevent insurance coverage for punitive damages when the insured did not authorize or participate in the tortfeasor's intentional act.
The court held that the assault qualified as an accident within the insurance policy because the beach boy was not a managing agent or directing authority of the insured and there was no evidence the insured authorized or consented to the intentional injury. The court further held that public policy does not prohibit insurance coverage for punitive damages when the insured did not participate in or authorize the tortious act.
“We can not consider the acts of the "beach boy" to be the acts of the insured. Nor do we find that because the beach boy had full authority to deal with those persons who violated the insured's property that the assault was committed with the insured's authority or consent.”
Establishes that the assault cannot be attributed to the insured corporation because the employee lacked actual authority to intentionally injure trespassers.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEdna Hughes was assaulted by a beach boy employed by N & B Corp. while on the corporation's private beach. The beach boy had authority to police the b…
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 Liability Insurance cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by the garnishee, Sterling Insurance Company, from a summary final judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, Edna Hughes and Herbert Hughes, her husband, in a garnishment proceeding.
The garnishment action was instituted after a final judgment was entered in favor *899of the plaintiffs against the defendant, N & B Corp., in an action for assault and battery.
The final judgment entered in the assault and battery suit was for $2,000 compensatory damages and $6,000 punitive damages. On appeal, this court affirmed the judgment.1 We held that:
“Appellee, wife, was assaulted by appellant’s ‘beach boy’ when she went on to appellant’s ‘private beach’. The beach boy was appellant’s employee and had custody of the beach area. * * * ”
“We find that there is evidence in the record to support the verdict for both compensatory and punitive damages inasmuch as the beach boy was given apparent authority to police the beach area and full authority to deal with those persons who violated the appellant’s property.”
The garnishee in its answer admitted liability for the compensatory damages but denied any indebtedness for the punitive damages. The lower court entered a summary final judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and specifically awarded recovery of $6,000 in punitive damages to Edna Hughes from the garnishee.
The garnishee presents two points on this appeal: whether or not the assault was an accident within the liability policy which considers assault and battery an accident unless committed by or at the direction of the insured; and, whether a policy obligating an insurer to pay “all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury, sickness or disease” includes an obligation to pay amounts assessed against its insured as punitive damages.
The garnishee submits that the case of Roberts v. R & S Liquor Stores, Inc., Fla. App.1964, 164 So.2d 533 is controlling. The garnishee asserts that the court in the above case held that where an assault is committed by an employee of a corporation acting in the line of his duty and in the interests of the corporation, said assault may not be considered an accident within the meaning of the clause of an insurance policy providing that an assault and battery shall not be deemed an accident where committed by or at the direction of the insured.2
We do not agree with the assertion of the garnishee. In the Roberts case, above, and the decision upon which the court therein relied,3 the employee committing the assault and battery was the general manager of the corporation or its managing agent. In each case the court was able to determine that the acts of the manager were the acts of the insured.4
We can not consider the acts of the “beach boy” to be the acts of the insured. Nor do we find that because the beach boy had full authority to deal with those persons who violated the insured’s property that the assault was committed with the insured’s authority or consent. While the beach boy may be considered to have been acting in the furtherance of the insured’s business, there is no evidence to indicate that the insured gave him authority to intentionally inflict injuries upon those persons who violated the insured’s property.
Thus, we hold that the assault and battery was an accident within the meaning of the contract of insurance.
*900In order to avoid payment of punitive damages, the garnishee indicates that the nature and purpose of punitive damages in Florida is to impose a punishment on the defendant and to deter others, and that they are an award beyond the actual damages suffered. The garnishee cites Nicholson v. American Fire and Casualty Ins. Co., Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 52, page 54, wherein the Second District said:
“Based on this rationale of punitive damages, we are convinced that to allow drivers of automobiles to shift the responsibility for this type of penalty to an insurance company contravenes the public policy of the state.”
However, it is generally held that there is a distinction between the actual tortfeasor and one only vicariously liable and that therefore public policy is not violated by construing a liability policy to include punitive damages recovered by an injured person where the insured did not participate in or authorize the act.5
We therefore hold that the punitive damages under the facts here are within the meaning of the liability policy of insurance and that public policy will not be violated in requiring the garnishee to pay said damages.
Finding no error, the judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
(dissenting).
I would hold that the beach boy, who was in charge of beach activities of the corporation, occupied the position of a managing agent and would follow Roberts v. R & S Liquor Stores, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 164 So.2d 533. Under this view, the reasoning in Nicholson v. American Fire & Casualty Ins. Co., Fla.App. 1965, 177 So.2d 52, would also be applicable.
PEARSON, Judge
(dissenting).
I would hold that the beach boy, who was in charge of beach activities of the corporation, occupied the position of a managing agent and would follow Roberts v. R & S Liquor Stores, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 164 So. 2d 533. Under this view, the reasoning in Nicholson v. American Fire & Casualty Ins. Co., Fla.App. 1965, 177 So. 2d 52, would also be applicable.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 1978)…court did its duty. The Court thus affirmed an order granting a new trial in the absence of a remittitur of $500 of a verdict for $1,089.82, without reciting record “influences” indicating the amount of excessiveness. . Sterling Ins. Co. v. Hughes, 187 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); Nicholson v. American Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 177 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965); Northwestern Nat. Cas. Co. v. McNulty, 307 F. 2d 432 (5th Cir. 1962). See also Annot. 20 A.L.R.3d 343 (1968). . See The American Jury System (Annual C…
-
U.S. Concrete Pipe Co. v. Bould, 437 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1983)…allowing insurance to cover punitive damages imposed under a theory of vicarious liability. Morrison v. Hugger, 369 So. 2d 614 (Fla.2d DCA 1979); Travelers Insurance Co. v. Wilson, 261 So. 2d 545 (Fla.4th DCA 1972); Sterling Insurance Co. v. Hughes, 187 So. 2d 898 (Fla.3d DCA), cert. denied, 194 So. 2d 622 (Fla.1966). Long before our holding in Mercury Motors, this Court had acknowledged the vicarious liability of an employer in punitive damages for the willful, wanton or malicious acts committed by his empl…1 / 2
-
Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. U.S. Concrete Pipe Co., 369 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…rior” and that public policy is not contravened by shifting the risk of vicarious liability for punitive damages to an insurance company. See, Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Archer, 126 Fla. 308, 171 So. 214 (1936); Sterling Ins. Co. v. Hughes, [*453] 187 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 261 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); Norfolk and Western Railway Co. v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., 420 F.Supp. 92 (N.D.Ind.1976). Appellant acknowledges this principle in quoting from Sterli…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wilford M. Nicholson v. Am. Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 177 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Consol. Mut. Ins. Co. v. IVY Liquors, Inc., 185 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Roberts v. R & S Liquor Stores, Inc., 164 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Welf. Fin. Co., 75 F.2d 58 (8th Cir. 1934)
- Segal v. State, 170 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)