THE HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
SOUTHPORT TERMINALS, INC., 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.
Home Insurance Company appealed a decision holding it liable under a comprehensive general liability policy issued to Southport Terminals, a stevedoring company, for claims arising from the stevedore's alleged breach of warranty in performing its services. The court held that contractual liability exclusions in insurance policies are ambiguous when applied to obligations arising from a business' own alleged breach of contract and are construed against the insurer.
The exclusion does not apply to liability arising from the insured's alleged breach of its own warranty of workmanlike performance in the conduct of its business. Contractual liability exclusions must be expressed in plain language and are ambiguous when applied to an insured's obligations arising from its own conduct; such ambiguity is resolved against the insurer.
[1] A stevedore's liability to indemnify a shipowner for injuries to the stevedore's employees arises from the warranty of workmanlike performance, not solely from a hold-har…
[2] A comprehensive general liability policy may exclude coverage for liability assumed under contract, but this exclusion is often narrowly construed.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“If an insurer does not intend to protect an insured stevedore against one of the major risks of its business it should say so in plain language at the time the policy is issued, not after a claim has arisen.”
Establishes the principle that insurers must clearly express exclusions for major business risks or they will be construed against the insurer.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSince 1956, stevedores have been liable to indemnify shipowners sued by the stevedore's employees injured on the job under the Ryan doctrine. Southpor…
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 Comprehensive General Liability Insurance cases and more on FLexlaw
Since 1956 stevedores have been liable to indemnify shipowners sued by the stevedore’s employees injured on the job. Ryan Stevedoring Co., Inc. v. Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corp., 350 U.S. 124, 76 S.Ct. 232, 100 L.Ed. 133. Thus Ryan gives the injured employee a way around the limitations of the Longshoremen and Harbor Workers Compensation Act, which may be bad law, but we are not the Supreme Court. The risk is one which might well prompt a prudent stevedoring firm to purchase a comprehensive general liability policy, which Southport did.
The policy does not protect Southport against “liability assumed by the insured under any contract or agreement except” certain common but irrelevant hold-harmless agreements. What this means is' debatable. It is at least arguable that it means that the insurance company is not liable to an insured which gratuitously undertakes to act as surety or which undertakes contractual obligations not arising as a matter of law in the conduct of its business. The cases holding that the exclusion does not apply are numerous and soundly reasoned. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Virginia Engineering Co., 4 Cir. 1954, 213 F.2d 109 (in a non-maritime context); Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America v. California Stevedore and Ballast Co., 9 Cir. 1962, 307 F.2d 513; Zidell v. Travelers Indemnity Co., D.C.1967, 264 F.Supp. 496; Annotation, 63 A.L.R.2d 1122.
As Judge Maxwell said in Owens v. Reederi Richard Schroder, Case No. 165945, Circuit Court for Hillsborough County, “Southport Terminals’ liability to the shipowners in this case is not founded upon either a written or oral hold harmless agreement but arises by virtue of South-*526port’s alleged breach of its warranty of workmanlike performance of its stevedor-ing services.”
If an insurer does not intend to protect an insured stevedore against one of the major risks of its business it should say so in plain language at the time the policy is issued, not after a claim has arisen. Ambiguity is resolved against the insurer.. This is simply, as then Judge Blackmun put it, “an accepted principle of insurance law and a fact of insurance life.” Great Central Insurance Co. v. Marble, 8 Cir. 1966, 369 F.2d 615, 617.
Affirmed.
LILES, Acting C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mathews v. Ranger Ins. Co., 281 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 1973)…(3), Florida Constitution, F.S.A., because of a direct conflict between the decision sub judice of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, reported at 267 So. 2d 867 (1972), and the cases of Home Insurance Company v. Southport Terminals, Inc., 240 So. 2d 525 (Fla.App.1970), and Joseph Uram Jewelers, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 273 So. 2d 111 (Fla.App.1972). Petitioners are the Administratrix and survivors of the deceased, Charles Mathews, a student pilot who died as a result of injuries…
-
Mitchel v. Cigna Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 625 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…me voluntarily assumed contractual obligation — which is what is excluded from coverage by the provision in question. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Virginia Eng’g Co., 213 F. 2d 109 (4th Cir.1954); Home Ins. Co. v, Southport Terminals, Inc., 240 So. 2d 525 (Fla.2d DCA 1970), cert. denied, 245 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 1971). Mitchel's plea agreement does not invoke this exclusion any more than an admission of liability in a civil action for' damages.…
-
Marina del Americana, Inc. v. Miller, 330 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)…sts as to the meaning of “the insured” under the second policy, and that such ambiguity must be construed against the insurer, New Amsterdam Casualty Company v. Knowles, 95 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 1957); Home Insurance Company v. Southport Terminals, Inc., 240 So. 2d 525 (2nd D.C.A. Fla. 1970). We find no basis for holding that these two policies should be construed together. To the contrary, every indication is that each policy represents a separate and distinct agreement and must be construed in and of itself. Th…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ryan Stevedoring Co., Inc. v. Pan-Atlantic S.S. Corp., 350 U.S. 124 (U.S. 1956)
- United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Va. Eng'g Co., Inc., 213 F.2d 109 (4th Cir. 1954)
- Indem. Ins. Co. OF N. Am. v. Cal. Stevedore & Ballast Co., 307 F.2d 513 (9th Cir. 1962)
- Great Cent. Ins. Co. v. Carlton Marble, Jr., 369 F.2d 615 (8th Cir. 1966)