THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
BENNETT A. SPECTOR, 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.
Travelers Indemnity Company appeals a summary judgment awarding Bennett Spector $2,085 for stolen personal items from his locked, unattended car. The court affirmed, holding that an insurance policy exclusion for property loss in unattended vehicles contains an exception for forcible entry, and the requirement of visible marks of entry applies only to locked luggage compartments, not to the vehicle itself.
The court held that the insurance policy language is clear and unambiguous, and the requirement of visible marks of forcible entry applies specifically to entry into a fully enclosed and locked luggage compartment, not to the vehicle itself. Therefore, Spector's loss from forcible entry into his locked, unattended vehicle qualifies for coverage.
[1] An insurance policy exclusion for property in an unattended vehicle is clear and unambiguous when it requires forcible entry into the vehicle or a locked luggage compartm…
[2] The requirement of visible marks upon the exterior of a vehicle in an insurance exclusion refers to forcible entry into a locked luggage compartment.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 the language of an insurance contract is clear and unambiguous, there is no occasion for construction and the language will be accorded its natural meaning.”
The court's standard for interpreting insurance contracts, establishing that clear language requires no construction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSpector locked his car with windows closed and doors locked before going to the beach. Upon returning, he found the doors unlocked and discovered seve…
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 Forcible Entry cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant-appellant appeals an adverse final judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff-appellee in the sum of $2,085 plus court costs and attorneys’ fees.
Plaintiff-appellee, Bennett Spector, drove to the beach, parked his car, closed the windows and locked both car doors. Upon returning to his automobile, he found the doors unlocked and discovered several items of personal property missing from the car. Thereafter, plaintiff .filed a proof of loss with the defendant-appellant, The Travelers Indemnity Company, which had issued to plaintiff a homeowner’s policy. Defendant denied coverage pursuant to the following exclusion provision:
“(b) property while in or on an unattended automobile, motorcycle or trailer, other than a public conveyance, unless the loss is the result of forcible entry either into such vehicle while all doors and windows thereof are closed and locked or into a fully enclosed and locked luggage compartment of which entry there are visible marks upon the exterior of said vehicle, provided a vehicle shall not be considered unattended when the insured is required to surrender the keys of said vehicle to a bailee.”
Thereupon, plaintiff Spector filed a complaint against the defendant insurer to recover damages for the lost articles. Defendant answered and alleged that the policy required visible marks of entry into the automobile in order for plaintiff to recover. Plaintiff then moved for summary judgment as to liability and appellant insurer filed an affidavit in opposition thereto. On November 9, 1973, the trial judge granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to liability and reserved ruling on the issue of damages. Plaintiff on December 5, 1973 moved for summary judgment as to damages which was granted by the trial judge who entered judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellee for the sum of $2,085 plus $650 as attorneys’ fees and $30 court costs. Defendant appeals therefrom.
Appellant argues that the language of paragraph (b) of the exclusion is clear and unequivocal in requiring that marks of forcible entry be on an unattended vehicle from which personal items have been stolen in order that such items be excepted therefrom.
If the language of an insurance contract is clear and unambiguous, there is no occasion for construction and the language will be accorded its natural meaning. 18 Fla. Jur.Insurance § 401 (1971).
We find the language of paragraph (b) of the exclusion to be clear and unambiguous. Section (b) clearly excludes coverage for loss of personal items which are in an unattended vehicle. However, it then goes on to except from this exclusion of coverage (1) loss as a result of forcible entry into a vehicle while all doors and windows thereof are locked, and (2) loss which is the result of forcible entry with visible marks into a full enclosed and locked compartment. Thus, we conclude that the requirement of visible marks upon the exteri-or of the vehicle refers to the locked luggage compartment.
Accordingly, the summary final judgment herein appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.