SOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
SOPHIA KONTAXIS, 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.
The appellate court affirmed a jury verdict for an insured whose truck was stolen, finding that the insurance carrier's exclusion for theft by an employee did not apply. The court held that the jury could have reasonably found the thief was an independent contractor, not an employee.
No, the trial judge did not err in giving the jury instruction on independent contractors. There was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the relationship between the insured and the thief was that of an independent contractor, thus not falling under the policy exclusion.
“The appellant carrier resisted the claim for loss by theft of the truck on the grounds of a policy exclusion of coverage for theft caused by any person in the insured's employment.”
This quote establishes the core dispute and the policy exclusion at issue.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Southern Insurance Company appealed a jury verdict awarding coverage to Sophia Kontaxis for the theft of her truck. The insurance policy excluded …
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 Employment Relationship cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of the insured appellee against appellant carrier under an insurance policy for the theft of an insured’s truck.
The appellant carrier resisted the claim for loss by theft of the truck on the grounds of a policy exclusion of coverage for theft caused by any person in the insured’s employment. The insured, of course, contended that the policy exclusion did not apply because the person causing the loss by theft was not in the owner’s employment within the meaning of the policy provision.
Appellant’s sole question raised on appeal is whether the trial judge erroneously gave one of the plaintiff’s requested instructions concerning the law of independent contractors. Appellant claims that the giving of the questioned instruction was improper because there was no evidence placed before the jury based upon which it could find that such a relationship existed between the insured and the person who took the truck in question. Examination of the record reflects that there was introduced evidence which if believed by the jury could have sustained a finding that the relationship between the insured and the errant party was that of independent contractor. *494Accordingly, the giving of the questioned instruction to the jury is not reversible error.
Affirmed.
RAWLS, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.