ROSALINA OTERO ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE; JOSE RODRIGUEZ ET UX., APPELLANTS, V. UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
Mrs. Otero's homeowners insurance policy did not cover injuries to a tenant who was assaulted by her son-in-law because the incident arose out of business pursuits covered by an exclusionary clause. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment dismissing the insurer from liability.
The insurance policy's exclusionary clause excluding coverage for bodily injury arising out of business pursuits applies because Rodriguez's injury primarily arose out of Mrs. Otero's business interests in managing the apartment house through her agent Lima.
[1] An insurance policy exclusion for "business pursuits" applies to activities ordinarily incident to non-business pursuits when the injury arises from the insured's busines…
[2] An insured may be vicariously liable for the actions of an agent acting in furtherance of the insured's business interests, even if the agent is not a compensated employe…
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“This policy does not apply: (l)(d) to bodily injury or property damage arising out of business pursuits of any Insured except activities therein which are ordinarily incident to non-business pursuits”
The exclusionary clause in the insurance policy that bars coverage for bodily injury arising from business pursuits.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMrs. Otero, an elderly widow who owned an apartment house, requested her son-in-law Lima to meet with tenant Jose Rodriguez regarding a dispute over r…
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 Business Pursuits Exclusion cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
The appellant, Rosalina Otero, defendant in the trial court, seeks review of a final judgment determining that the appellee, United States Fire Insurance Company, does not owe coverage to Mrs. Otero under a homeowners’ policy, and dismissing the insurance company from liability. The stipulated facts between the parties reveal that Mrs. Otero was sued by the plaintiff, Jose Rodriguez. The material allegations of Rodriguez’ complaint were that Rodriguez and his wife were tenants in an apartment house owned by Mrs. Otero and that Rodriguez was intentionally assaulted and beaten up by one Orlando Lima, an agent of Mrs. Otero.
The parties stipulated that Lima is Mrs. Otero’s son-in-law; that Lima assisted Mrs. Otero, who is an elderly widow, in upkeep of the apartment house and occasionally collected rent; that Mrs. Otero requested that her son-in-law, Lima, meet with the plaintiff Rodriguez at the subject premises covered by the insurance policy regarding a dispute which had arisen concerning the return of a security deposit to Rodriguez as well as the return of a key by Rodriguez to Mrs. Otero; that at this meeting between Rodriguez and Lima an exchange of profanities erupted followed by a fist fight, giving rise to a lawsuit filed by Rodriguez against Mrs. Otero.
The principal issue regarding insurance coverage focused upon an exclusionary clause of the insurance policy, which reads as follows:
“This policy does not apply:
“(l)(d) to bodily injury or property damage arising out of business pursuits of any Insured except activities therein which are ordinarily incident to non-business pursuits;”
Appellant argues that the exclusions when read in light of the entire insurance agreement and when construed most favorably on behalf of the insured, Mrs. Otero, does not exclude coverage to her under the facts of this case. We must disagree.
Although the parties stipulated that Lima was not an “employee,” receiving compensation for his assistance rendered on behalf of Mrs. Otero, we think it is quite clear that Rodriguez’ complaint was based upon a theory of agency; and that Mrs. Otero was vicariously liable because Lima was acting in furtherance of her business interests. Cf., Sixty-Six, Inc. v. Finley, Fla.App.1969, 224 So. 2d 381; Sands v. Ivy Liquors, Inc., Fla.App.1966, 192 So. 2d 775; 3 Am.Jur.2d Agency § 267.
Therefore, it is our conclusion that the trial court was eminently correct in finding that the episode involved in this case and the personal injury to the plaintiff primarily arose out of a business pursuit and coverage under the policy was excluded. See generally, Annot., 48 A.L.R.3d 1096; Gilliland v. Employers Liability Assurance Corporation, Ltd., 417 S.W. 2d 921 (Tex.Civ.App.1967); see also, Swiss National Insurance Company v. Martorella, Fla.App.1970, 239 So. 2d 144.
For the reasons stated, the judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Joshua Miller, M.D., 549 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…l to a non-business pursuit. We conclude that Liberty Mutual’s homeowner’s policy with Dr. Miller does not afford coverage for the incident. In a similar case involving a virtually identical provision, Otero v. United States Fire Insurance Company, 314 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. den., 328 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 1976), this court concluded the homeowner’s policy did not afford coverage for the incident. In Otero, a tenant was injured when he was assaulted by the insured’s son-in-law. The assault arose du…
-
Gaynor v. Williams, 366 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…within the accepted definition of a “business pursuit.”2 O’Conner v. Safeco Ins. Co. of North America, 352 So. 2d 1244, 1246 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Peterson v. Highlands Ins. Co., 328 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Otero v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 314 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 328 So. 2d 843 (Fla.1976). Furthermore, it does not matter that the ownership of the apartment house was not [*1244] Gaynor’s only or main occupation. See Wiley v. Travelers Ins. Co., 534 P. 2d 1293 (Okl.1974); Ste…
-
Lambert v. Allstate Ins. Co., 593 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…s. Co., 546 So. 2d 1051 (Fla.1989). The exclusion applies to conduct which is primarily undertaken in furtherance of a business interest. See Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Miller, 549 So. 2d 1200 (Fla.3d DCA 1989); Otero v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 314 So. 2d 208 (Fla.Sd DCA 1975), cert. denied, 328 So. 2d 843 (Fla.1976). The record in the present case is somewhat ambiguous as to this issue of material fact. Summary judgment is appropriate only if there is no genuine dispute as to any issue of material fact.…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sixty-Six, Inc. v. Finley, 224 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Sands v. IVY Liquors, Inc., 192 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Swiss Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Martorella, 239 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)