THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
SYMON, TULLY & ASSOCIATES, 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.
The appellate court affirmed a lower court's summary judgment, holding that an insurance policy's exclusionary clause did not exempt the insurer from liability for the actions of independent contractors hired by the insured.
No, the exclusionary clause does not exclude liability for the insured's own negligence in hiring or supervising an independent contractor, as the clause is intended to exclude coverage for the contractor's direct actions, not the insured's independent negligence.
“By its interpretation, the lower court held that the exclusionary clause in the policy does not serve to except from coverage liability that may be imposed upon appellee arising out of the acts of independent contractors with which appellee had contracted.”
Describes the lower court's ruling on the interpretation of the exclusionary clause.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Travelers Indemnity Company (appellant) issued a policy of insurance to Symon, Tully & Associates, Inc. (appellee). The appellee was sued for liab…
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 Exclusion Clause Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks review of a final summary judgment in which the lower court interpreted an exclusionary clause in a policy of insurance issued by appellant to appellee. By its interpretation, the lower court held that the exclusionary clause in the policy does not serve to except from coverage liability that may be imposed upon appellee arising out of the acts of independent contractors with which appellee had contracted. In the case at bar, appellant has stipulated that the operator of the vehicle involved in the accident was an independent contractor.
We have carefully reviewed the authorities cited by counsel for the parties herein and the well reasoned order entered by the court below. Upon such consideration, it is our view that the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the interpretation accorded the disputed policy provision is erroneous. Accordingly, the judgment here under review is affirmed.
WIGGINTON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K, J., concur.