THE HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
GEORGE T. GURR, 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 reversed a summary judgment granted to the insurance company, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the vessel's use at the time of the fire. This means the case must proceed to trial to determine coverage.
Yes, genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the vessel's use at the time of the loss. Therefore, summary judgment was inappropriate.
[1] A genuine issue of material fact exists when the record contains conflicting evidence regarding the purpose of a vessel's voyage at the time of loss.
[2] Summary judgment is inappropriate when the evidence presented by both parties raises factual disputes that require resolution by a fact-finder.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The record on appeal demonstrates conclusively that genuine issues of material fact with regard to whether or not the “Tempest I” was engaged in a commercial or pleasure voyage at the time the loss occurred, remained to be determined.”
Establishes the core reason for reversing the summary judgment.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGeorge Gurr sued Home Insurance Company for fire loss to his vessel, alleging coverage under a policy. The insurance company denied coverage, arguing …
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 Coverage cases and more on FLexlaw
The corporate appellant was one of two defendants below. The action was initiated by George Gurr, appellee, alleging that the Home Insurance Company was liable for the loss sustained by Gurr when his vessel, “Tempest I”, was destroyed by fire. The action was predicated upon a policy of insurance which contains a private pleasure warranty, under the terms of which the insured agrees that the vessel is to be used only for private pleasure purposes. Predicating its defense on the above warranty, the appellant denied coverage, arguing that the “Tempest I” was engaged in a commercial search for sunken treasure at the time the loss occurred, and therefore, that the vessel was not within the terms of coverage.
Summary final judgment was granted against the appellant and it has appealed.
We must reverse. The record on appeal demonstrates conclusively that genuine issues of material fact with regard to whether or not the “Tempest I” was engaged in a commercial or pleasure voyage at the time the loss occurred, remained to be determined. The appellant cites numerous facts, based upon record evidence and testimony, which it contends demonstrate that the entire purpose of the particular voyage being taken by the “Tempest I” at the time of the loss was in connection with a continuing search for sunken treasure. The appellee cites evidence in the record which shows that the loss occurred as a result of fire which began while two crewmen were having a coffee break during a routine cruise between Miami and John Penne-kamp Park in Key Largo, Florida. The appellee also argues that no evidence appears in the record to show that the vessel was engaged in a commercial operation or was under charter to a third party at the time of the loss. Suffice it to say that each of these contentions of the parties have merit and appear to be proper subjects for resolution by other than the sum*69mary procedures that were used by the trial court.
Therefore, in accordance with the views expressed in this opinion, we are compelled to reverse the summary final judgment being appealed.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Arkwright-Boston Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Kieldsen, 305 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…rposes. There being no material issues in fact, we find that the trial judge correctly decided the issue of coverage, the only matter remaining to be resolved, in favor of the appellee, Kieldsen. Cf. The Home Insurance Company v. Gurr, Fla.App.1970, 237 So. 2d 68 and see Reliance Insurance Company v. The Yacht “Escapade,” 280 F. 2d 482 (5th Cir. 1960). Accordingly, the judgment herein appealed hereby is affirmed. Affirmed.…