TOPP IMPORT & EXPORT, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
THE HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, 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.
Topp Import & Export sought to recover for damage to imported goods from Japan that were lost or damaged during transport. The Home Insurance Company's policy explicitly excluded coverage for export or import shipments, and the court affirmed summary judgment in the insurer's favor.
The court held that paragraph 6(d) of the insurance policy clearly excluded loss or damage to export or import shipments, and therefore the insurer was not liable for the plaintiff's losses.
[1] An insurance policy's exclusion for "export or import shipments" applies to goods that are being imported.
[2] An insurance policy's exclusion for "export or import shipments" applies to goods that are being exported.
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 policy covered the merchandise being the property of the insured, but did not insure against loss or damage to export or import items.”
Establishes the key exclusion in the policy that is dispositive to 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 intelligencePiggy-Back Shippers Association, a freight consolidation consultant, obtained an all-risk insurance policy from The Home Insurance Company covering fr…
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 Policy Exclusion cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff-appellant seeks review of a summary judgment in favor of The Home Insurance Company, one of two defendants below.
Defendant Piggy-Back Shippers Association of Florida, Inc., a non-profit corporation, is composed of several hundred members, one of which is the plaintiff, Topp Import & Export, Inc. The association acts as a freight consolidation consultant for its members resulting in the obtainment of advantageous freight rates. It never issued its own bill of lading, owned no equipment, neither bought nor sold merchandise, nor did it ship merchandise on its own behalf other than merchandise belonging to its members. Piggy-Back, designated as the insured, obtained from the defendant The Home Insurance Company an insurance policy in the form of a specially designed all risk coverage on freight. The policy covered the merchandise being the property of the insured, but did not insure against loss or damage to export or import items. The plaintiff, Topp Import & Export, was furnished a copy of this policy. Thereafter, Topp requested Piggy-Back to arrange for transportation of goods from Seattle, Washington to East Rutherford, New Jersey. The goods, composed of radios and tape recorders imported from Japan, were placed into two trailers which in turn were put on a railroad car. While being transported by rail, one of the trailers struck a low overpass and plaintiff’s goods were damaged. The second trailer was hijacked en route to plaintiff’s warehouse in New Jersey. Plaintiff filed suit against the defendants, The Home Insurance Company and Piggy-Baclc Shippers Association. The lower court granted summary judgment in favor of The Home Insurance Company. Plaintiff appeals this judgment. The issues as to defendant Piggy-Back Shippers Association of Florida are not a subject of this appeal.
We are in accord with the finding of the lower court that paragraph 6(d) 1 of the insurance policy clearly excludes loss or damage to export or import shipments as in the case sub judice. See Florida Greenheart Corporation v. Gautier, Fla.1965, 172 So.2d 589.
Accordingly, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Town OF Palm Beach v. State ex rel. Milton F. Steinhardt, 318 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…s interpretation of the Town’s Ordinance and because Mr. Steinhardt did not establish a clear legal right to the issuance of a paving permit and the writ commanding same. State ex rel. Lacedonia v. Harvey, 68 So. 2d 817 (Fla.1953); Rhoades v. Sweet, 276 So. 2d 221 (3d DCA Fla.1973). We reverse and remand with respectful instructions to quash the peremptory writ of mandamus. Reversed and remanded. CROSS and DOWNEY, JJ., concur. . Mr. Steinhardt has argued that the new modification in the Town Code of the b…
-
Topp Imp. & Exp., Inc. v. The Home Ins. Co., 284 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 1973)…ERVIN, Justice (dissenting) : The District Court, Fla.App., 276 So. 2d 221, construed the subject insurance policy against the insured holding that the coverage did not insure against loss to import shipments. The shipments in question had been brought by vessel into the United States at Seattle, Washington in foreign comm…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Greenheart Corp. v. Gautier, 172 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 1965)