ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
COIN-O-MAT, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Allstate Insurance refused to pay a claim for damage to coin-operated washing machines caused by vandalism and malicious mischief, asserting that a theft/burglary exclusion in the policy barred coverage. The court affirmed summary judgment for the policyholder, holding that vandalism and malicious mischief damage is covered even if it occurred during or alongside a theft or burglary, and that the insurer failed to meet its burden of proving the loss fell within an exclusionary clause.
The court held that vandalism and malicious mischief losses are covered under the policy even if they occurred in the course of an actual or attempted theft or burglary. Summary judgment was proper because the evidence established without conflicting inferences that the loss was due to vandalism or malicious mischief, and the insurer failed to carry its burden of proving the loss fell within an exclusionary clause.
“The evidence before the court was sufficient to establish without conflicting inferences that the plaintiff suffered a direct loss to its insured property through vandalism or malicious mischief, which loss is not excluded from coverage even though it may have occurred in the course of an actual or attempted theft or burglary.”
Establishes that the loss qualifies for coverage and is not barred by the theft/burglary exclusion simply because it occurred alongside such acts.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff owned and operated a coin-operated laundry covered by a vandalism and malicious mischief insurance policy. While the policy was in force…
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 Policy Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant in an action upon an insurance policy has appealed from a final summary judgment entered by the Circuit Court for Escambia County.
The question presented for our determination is whether that judgment was entered pursuant to Rule 1.510, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, 31 F.S.A.— that is, whether there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and whether the plaintiff was entitled to such a judgment as a matter of law.
The policy in question includes vandalism and malicious mischief insurance, covering the contents of an automatic coin-operated laundry owned and operated by the plaintiff.
On the date in question, while the policy was in force, one or more persons entered the said laundry and severely damaged 12 washing machines, requiring the plaintiff to expend substantial funds in order to repair the damaged machines. The defendant, the insurer, however, refused to pay for the loss on the ground that the loss was not covered by the policy. This position of the defendant was founded upon an exception clause of the policy providing that the policy does not cover any loss by theft or burglary.
The evidence before the court was sufficient to establish without conflicting inferences that the plaintiff suffered a direct loss to its insured property through vandalism or malicious mischief, which loss is not excluded from coverage even though it may have occurred in the course of an actual or attempted theft or burglary. The burden was on the defendant to prove that the plaintiff’s loss came under some exclusionary clause of the policy, which burden was not carried. Fla.Jur., Insurance, Sec. 437. Under these circumstances we think .the Circuit Court was justified under our procedural rules in entering the final summary judgment appealed from.
Affirmed.
WIGGINTON, C. J., and CARROLL,.
DONALD K., and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Herrera v. C.A. Seguros Catatumbo, 844 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…nk, had the burden of demonstrating that the conduct of another insured fell within an exclusion from coverage once a covered loss was shown); New York Life Ins. Co. v. Coll, 568 So. 2d 1306 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Coin-O-Mat, Inc., 202 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)(concluding that insurer whose policy included coverage against vandalism and malicious mischief to contents of insured’s automatic coin-operated laundry had the burden of proving that loss came under some exclusionary clause of t…
-
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Flitman, 234 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…carry its burden of proof that these losses were excluded under the provisions of the policy. See Fire Ass’n of Philadelphia v. Evansville Brewing Ass’n, 73 Fla. 904, 75 So. 196 (1917); Allstate Insurance Company v. Coin-O-Mat, Inc., Fla.App. 1967, 202 So. 2d 598; and 18 Fla.Jur. Insurance § 431. Liberty argues that reversible error was committed when the trial court would not permit it to take the deposition, or subpoena the records of plaintiff’s attorney or require the plaintiff to answer certain written…
-
United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. J.D. Johnson Co., Inc., 438 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…rd, 514 P. 2d 782 (Colo.App.1973). Such “parting,” while induced by fraud, is nonetheless “voluntary.” The burden is upon USF & G to prove facts establishing an exclusion as to each piece of property involved. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Coin-O-Mat, Inc., 202 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967); 31 Fla.Jur.2d, Insurance, § 996. In view of the testimony of Johnson’s employees, USF & G presented sufficient evidence to create a question of fact for the jury, making it error to enter summary judgment for Johnson.4 The orde…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence