HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
PUBLIX MARKET, INC., 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.
Hanover Insurance Company appealed from a decree reforming an insurance policy to correct the named insured from a non-existent corporation (Taft-Hollywood Merchants Association, Inc.) to the unincorporated association actually intended by the parties. The court affirmed the reformation and held that Publix Market, Inc., as a member of the unincorporated association, was entitled to policy benefits from the policy's inception.
The trial court correctly reformed the policy nunc pro tunc to name the insured as 'Taft Hollywood Merchants Association, not incorporated' and declared that Publix Market, Inc., as a member, was entitled to all policy benefits from the policy's date of issuance. The reformation was supported by clear and convincing evidence of the parties' intent.
“The policy erroneously insured Taft-Hollywood Merchants Association, Inc., a non-profit corporation, which was nonexistent as a corporation at the time the policy was issued and never came into being.”
Establishes the fundamental error in the policy that necessitated reformation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHanover Insurance issued a liability policy for hazards arising from promotional activities at the Taft-Hollywood Shopping Center. The policy erroneou…
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 Reformation Of Insurance Policy cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a final decree reforming an insurance policy issued by the appellant. The insurance company issued a liability policy to afford protection for hazards arising from the promotional activities engaged, in for the benefit of the tenants-members of the Taft-Hollywood Shopping Center. The policy erroneously insured Taft-Hollywood Merchants Association, Inc., a non-profit corporation, which was nonexistent as a corporation at the time the policy was issued and never came into being. Taft-Hollywood Merchants Association was an unincorporated association composed of a number of merchants occupying space in the shopping center. Some six months after the policy was in force, while the Merchants Association was engaged in activities upon the parking area of the center to promote its membership, a platform collapsed resulting in several claims for personal injuries. The insurance company refused to accept the responsibility for adjusting or defending claims arising therefrom, taking the position the insured was the non-profit corporation named in the policy, not the unincorporated association. Hence, this suit was filed seeking to reform the policy and declare the rights of the parties.
*348Upon the evidence adduced at the final hearing, the trial judge entered a decree reforming the policy nunc pro tunc “so that the named insured be described as ‘Taft Hollywood Merchants Association, not incorporated’ ” to conform to the “true intent of the parties.” The court further declared that Publix Market, Inc., as a member of the Merchants Association, was entitled to all the benefits of the policy from date of issuance. The appellant attacks the sufficiency of the evidence. Careful examination and consideration of the record convinces us that the trial judge correctly found the plaintiff had sustained the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence its right to relief. Old Colony Insurance Co. v. Trapani, Fla. App.1960, 118 So.2d 850; Sobel v. Lobel, Fla.App.1964, 168 So.2d 195.
The position of the appellant that indispensable parties were not joined, that is to say, all merchants composing the unincorporated association, is without merit. The real party in interest was Publix Market, Inc., as it had sustained losses. The benefits of the policy were granted it as a member of the non-incorporated association. The remaining members of the association may be proper but not essential parties plaintiff.
A post-trial motion to tax costs was heard by another judge. His order taxed court costs and attorney’s fee in the declaratory proceeding. Also, he found that one-third of coürt costs, attorney’s fee and judgment rendered in a separate proceeding as well as costs and attorney’s fee in a third suit were proper items of cost to be allowed in the instant proceeding. The sums allowed arose by reason of claims under the policy, as reformed, but maturing before entry of the final decree herein.
The decree now on appeal fixed the liability of the insurance company generally by> reforming the policy to the extent of correcting the named insured. Costs and damages allowed in an order finalizing the rights and benefits inuring to Publix Market, Inc., are items which properly may be assessed in this proceeding.
Affirmed.
ANDREWS, Acting C. J., and CROSS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schlehuber v. Norfolk & Dedham Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 281 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…nvolved in appellant’s failure to secure an assignment of the policy. We are convinced that this position is well taken. See Royal Ins. Co. v. Smith, 158 Fla. 472, 29 So. 2d 244 (1947); Hanover Insurance Company v. Publix Market, Inc., Fla.App.1967, 198 So. 2d 346; Old Colony Insurance Co. v. Trapani, Fla.App.1960, 118 So. 2d 850. However, we do find error in the court’s failure to declare appellant’s rights under the policy, and in its failure to proceed with the enforcement of the mortgagee payment clause u…
-
Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Martin, 399 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…artin to Francisco Martin, Sr., the father of the decedent, Francisco, Jr.; Poland v. Phillips, 371 So. 2d 1053 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); Boston Old Colony Ins. Co. v. Popple, 305 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); see Hanover Ins. Co. v. Publix Market, Inc., 198 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967); and (c) Under the applicable pre-.§ 627.4132 law,2 since Francisco, Jr. was a relative of the named insured residing in his household and therefore a “class one” additional insured,3 the $15,000 UM limits [*538] for the four ve…
-
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Ifergane, 114 So. 3d 190 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…cement by corporation or doctor/shareholder, and both corporation and doe-tor/shareholder therefore must be joined in action to ensure both of former shareholder’s “potential adversaries” are bound by judgment); Hanover Ins. Co. v. Publix Mkt, Inc., 198 So. 2d 346, 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967) (affirming trial court’s reformation of insurance policy that erroneously insured “Taft-Hollywood Merchants Association, Inc.,” a corporation that never came into being, instead of “Taft-Hollywood Merchants Association,” an…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- OLD Colony Ins. Co. v. Trapani, 118 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Bryant v. State, 168 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Meyer Sobel v. Lobel, 168 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)