SOUTHERN INSURANCE CO., APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLOTTE STORAGE & WAREHOUSE, INC., APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1971-06-30
No. 70-830
HOBSON, Acting C. J., and Mc-NULTY, J., concur.
251 So. 2d 725 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1971) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

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.

Holding

The court held that a corporation can be an 'insured' under an insurance policy, and a newly acquired vehicle clause applies even if the corporation cannot have a spouse.

Facts & Procedural History

Charlotte Storage owned a vehicle not listed on its collision policy, which was worth less than the deductible. The company acquired a new vehicle tha…

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.

Topics
Void Ab Initio Insurance Policy Interpretation

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Void Ab Initio cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
MANN, Judge.

MANN, Judge.

Newly acquired vehicles are covered under a clause in the typical insurance policy like that set forth in Martin v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co., Fla.App.2d 1970, 235 So.2d 14, if all of the insured’s vehicles are insured by the same carrier, Charlotte Storage owned a vehicle not covered by the $250-deductible collision policy which covered its many vehicles in regular use. The vehicle not listed in the schedule was worth less than $250, and its complete destruction would not give rise to a collision claim. Further, it was not in service, although it would run. Charlotte acquired a new vehicle which was wrecked before inclusion on the policy, but within the 30-day period for which newly acquired vehicles are covered.

The trial judge correctly held that the existence of a vehicle titled in the insured’s name, but of nominal value and not used in its business, did not deprive the insured of coverage on the newly acquired *726vehicle on the ground that not all of its vehicles were insured by the carrier. See Martin, supra; Civil Service Employees Insurance Co. v. Wilson, 1963, 222 Cal.App.2d 519, 35 Cal.Rptr. 304; Canal Ins. Co. v. Brooks, W.D.La.1962, 201 F.Supp. 124.

The insurer next contends that the newly acquired vehicle clause is void ab in-itio in this case because it was not applicable and could not be applicable to a corporation. That clause refers to the “insured * * * or his spouse if a resident of the same household.” Southern Insurance Company’s lawyer argues that this clause cannot apply because a corporation cannot have a spouse. Maybe not, but when the insurer issued, on a printed form prepared by it, insurance covering Charlotte Storage and Warehouse, Inc. against the damage it later sustained, it knew perfectly well that Charlotte Storage and Warehouse, Inc. was, and always will be, an unmarried corporation. It can be and was an “insured” under the policy.

Affirmed.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and Mc-NULTY, J., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Robinson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 583 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
    …ithin 30 days following such delivery date applies to the company for insurance on such newly acquired automobile. . See Silverstein v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 505 F. 2d 158 (5th Cir.1974); Southern Ins. Co. v. Charlotte Storage and Warehouse, Inc., 251 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971); Martin v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 235 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970). . According to the record, State Farm’s decision was made on September 14, 1976, the day after the thirty-day newly acquired vehicle deadline expired. .…
  • Oscar v. Bedgood and Vernon Bedgood, 384 So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
    …t benefits under a policy claimant or someone else did pay for. The same reasoning accounts for such decisions as Martin v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 235 So. 2d 14 (Fla.2d DCA 1970), and Southern Ins. Co. v. Charlotte Storage & Warehouse, Inc., 251 So. 2d 725 (Fla.2d DCA 1971), holding that the automatic 30-day coverage provision wasn’t made inapplicable to a new car the insured drove into a highway collision, within 30 days after acquisition, by the insured’s ownership of another, uninsured vehicle whic…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw