F. E. WILLIS D/B/A WILLIS DAIRY, APPELLANT,
v.
J. GLEN WILLIS, WILLIAM V. LUKE D/B/A CIRCLE L FLYING RANCH, HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, AND THE UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS, LONDON, A FOREIGN ASSOCIATION OF INDIVIDUAL UNDERWRITERS, APPELLEES
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.
Willis sued for damages to his pastureland caused by chemicals sprayed by Luke, seeking recovery under Luke's liability insurance policy with Lloyd's underwriters. The trial court granted summary judgment for the insurer based on an exclusionary endorsement that specifically excluded coverage for chemical-related damage, and the appellate court affirmed, holding the exclusion was clear and unambiguous.
The court held that the exclusionary endorsement, construed together with the insurance contract, clearly and unambiguously excludes liability for the chemical damage claim. Construction of an insurance contract is a question of law for the court, not a jury question. Luke's subjective belief that he had chemical liability coverage contrary to the policy's explicit provisions is immaterial.
[1] An insurance policy's exclusionary endorsement, when read in conjunction with the entire contract, will be enforced as written if it is clear and unambiguous.
[2] The interpretation of an insurance contract is a question of law for the court, not a question of fact for the jury.
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“It is our view that the exclusionary endorsement, when construed together with the contract of which it is a part, is clear, unambiguous, and specifically excludes liability for the claim sued upon as alleged in the complaint filed by Willis and the cross-claim by Luke against Lloyds.”
Establishes the court's central holding that the insurance exclusion is clear and unambiguous.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWillis suffered damage to his pastureland used for dairy purposes when chemicals were sprayed from an airplane by defendant Luke. Luke maintained a li…
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 Claim For Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff and one of several defendants have appealed summary final judgments against them rendered in favor of the defendant insurance carrier. It is contended that the trial court erred in holding that there existed no genuine issue of any material fact and that the defendant insurance carrier was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Plaintiff Willis claims damages suffered by him as a result of a chemical which was sprayed from an airplane on his pastureland by defendant Luke, thereby depriving him of the use of the pasture for dairy purposes. Luke’s insurance carrier, The Underwriters at Lloyds, London, was joined as a defendant because of a liability insurance contract issued by it to Luke which was in force and effect at the time of the occurrence which gave rise to the cause of action sued upon.
By its summary final judgments appealed herein the trial court construed the insurance contract, and the endorsement issued in connection therewith, as specifically excluding from coverage all liability for claims in respect of damage to or destruction of property caused by or resulting from the use by the assured of all forms of chemicals. In his application for the insurance which by reference was made a part of the policy, the assured Luke specifically stated that he did not desire to purchase chemical liability insurance.
It is our view that the exclusionary endorsement, when construed together with the contract of which it is a part,1 is clear, unambiguous, and specifically excludes liability for the claim sued upon as alleged in the complaint filed by Willis and the cross-claim by Luke against Lloyds.2 The construction to be placed upon the insurance contract involves a question of law to be resolved by the court and not an issue of fact to be resolved by the jury.3 The fact that Luke may have thought, as he now contends, that his insurance policy afforded him limited chemical liability coverage contrary to its specific provisions is immaterial.4
The judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
RAWLS and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Songer v. State, 322 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1975)…la.1961); Thompson v. State, 276 So. 2d 218 (Fla.App.1973), cert. den., 281 So. 2d 210. . Snipes v. State, 154 Fla. 262, 17 So. 2d 93 (1944). . Britts v. State, 158 Fla. 839, 30 So. 2d 363 (1947). . 104 So. 2d 352 (Fla.1958). . Harrell v. State, 245 So. 2d 302 (Fla.App.1971). . State v. Jones, 204 So. 2d 515 (Fla.1967). . State v. Dixon, 283 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1973), cert. den. in consolidated ease (Hunter), 416 U.S. 943, 94 S.Ct. 1950, 40 L.Ed.2d 295. . Section 921.141(3), Florida Statutes, now Section 921…
-
Gaulden v. Arkwright-Boston Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., 358 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…kewise erred in submitting said question to the jury. Generally, the construction to be placed upon an insurance contract involves a question of law to be resolved by the court and is not an issue of fact to be determined by jury. Willis v. Willis, 245 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). Sub judice, however, appellants introduced a second issue into the case. Appellants claimed that they had requested contents coverage from appellee and were misled into believing that such coverage had been extended. This allega…
Authorities Cited
- Flood v. Flood, 140 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- State Liquor Stores #1 v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 243 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- Fed. Ins. Co. v. McNICHOLS, 77 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 1955)
- Roark v. Peters, 242 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)