AMERICAN FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID RAYMOND WILLIAMS, 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.
American Fire and Casualty Company appeals a trial court judgment holding that a pick-up truck equipped with a camper body constituted a 'non-owned automobile' covered under the insured's collision policy. The court resolved the ambiguity in the insurance contract against the insurer, finding that the hybrid vehicle—used for passenger accommodation rather than cargo—fell within the policy's coverage for private passenger automobiles rather than utility vehicles.
The court held that the camper-equipped pick-up truck constitutes a non-owned private passenger automobile covered by the collision policy. Because the policy language was ambiguous regarding this hybrid vehicle and was drafted by the insurer, the ambiguity must be construed liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer.
“where a contract of insurance is prepared and phrased by the insurer it is to be construed liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer where the meaning of the language is doubtful, uncertain or ambiguous”
Establishes the fundamental rule of insurance contract interpretation in Florida that governs the case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe insured borrowed a Dodge pick-up truck equipped with a camper body for a family vacation. The collision policy at issue defined non-owned automobi…
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 Ambiguity In Contract Language cases and more on FLexlaw
The trial court held that a pick-up truck equipped with a camper body, which the insured borrowed for a family vacation, was a non-owned automobile within the meaning of and covered by his collision policy. That policy provided that a non-owned automobile for which collision damage was compensable must be a “private passenger automobile,” which is defined as “a four wheel private passenger, station wagon or jeep type automobile.” Appellant contends that it is a “utility automobile,” which is defined as “an automobile, other than a farm automobile, with a load capacity of fifteen hundred pounds or less of the pick-up body, sedan delivery or panel truck type not used for business or commercial purposes.”
Though the basis of the vehicle is a pickup truck, it is equipped with a camper body, the purpose of which is to accommodate passengers rather than another type of load, and it is a hybrid vehicle which the policy itself does not specifically contemplate. Thus the trial court correctly resolved the ambiguity against the insurer. Here is what he said:
“The automobile in question was a Dodge Camper. These campers are not new to the automotive industry or to the public. Thousands move across the highways of this Nation every year as passenger automobiles, and the National Parks of this country are filled with them.
“The Florida law applicable to contracts of insurance is basically that where a contract of insurance is prepared and phrased by the insurer it is to be construed liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer where the meaning of the language is doubtful, uncertain or ambiguous. Firemen’s [Firemans] Fund Insurance Company vs. Boyd [Fla.], 45 So.2d 499; Beasley vs. Wolf [Fla.App.], 151 So.2d 679. It is doubtful to this Court whether a camper is specifically excluded from the pertinent provisions of the Plaintiff’s policy.
“This Court finds, therefore, that there is no general issue as to any material fact and, that the Plaintiff is entitled to a Summary Judgment as a matter of law.”
We find no error in this finding, nor is there merit in the cross-appeal alleging that the fee allowed the insured’s attorney in the trial court was inadequate.
HOBSON, C. J., and LILES, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Turner Hodges v. Nat'l Union Indem. Co., 249 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1971)…nce Co. v. Mikell, Fla.App. 1967, 204 So. 2d 343; Forbes v. Allstate Insurance Company, Fla.App.1968, 210 So. 2d 244; Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. v. Mason, Fla.App.1968, 210 So. 2d 474; American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Williams, Fla.App.1969, 226 So. 2d 141; Valdes v. Prudence Mutual Casualty Co., Fla.App. 1968, 207 So. 2d 312; Prudential Life Insurance Co. v. Boyce, Fla.App.1970, 234 So. 2d 704; and Martin v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., Fla.App. 1970, 235 So. 2d 14. Lumbermen’s Mutual Ins. Co. v. S…
-
The Prudential Life Ins. Co. OF Am. v. Rubye B. Boyce, 234 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)…designated as a cargo area. While the question at hand has not heretofore been raised as it relates to a Jeep-ster Commando pickup truck in the reported cases of this jurisdiction, our sister court in American Fire and Casualty Company v. Williams, 226 So. 2d 141, held that a pickup truck equipped with a camper body was a “private passenger automobile” which was defined in the involved policy as a “four-wheel private passenger, station wagon or jeep-type automobile”. In so holding, the court upheld a summary…
Authorities Cited
- Firemans Fund Ins. Co. of San Francisco v. Boyd, 45 So.2d 499 (Fla. 1950)
- Beasley v. Wolf, 151 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)