RONALD STEWART, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL 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.
A police officer claimed disability insurance benefits for loss of his leg in an accident while responding to a fellow officer's call for assistance. The insurer denied the claim based on an exclusionary clause covering emergency vehicles, and the court upheld the denial, finding that a police motorcycle responding to an officer's call qualifies as an emergency vehicle under the policy's plain language.
The court held that the exclusionary clause is unambiguous and that a police motorcycle, particularly when operated in response to an officer's call for assistance, is an emergency vehicle within the plain meaning of the policy language.
[1] An unambiguous insurance policy provision must be enforced as written.
[2] Insurance policy language should be interpreted according to the understanding of ordinary people, not through uncommon meanings or contextual distortion.
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 language employed in a contract of insurance, and other contracts for that matter, should be read in the light of the skill and experience of ordinary people and resort should not be made to uncommon meanings nor contextual distortion. An unambiguous contract of insurance does not require construction and must be enforced as written.”
Establishes the fundamental principle of insurance contract interpretation requiring plain language readings of unambiguous terms
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRonald Stewart, a police officer, suffered the loss of his left leg while operating his police motorcycle in response to a fellow officer's call for a…
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 Contract Terms cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, a police officer, while responding to a fellow officer’s call for assistance, was involved in an accident resulting in the loss of his left leg. He submitted his claim to his insurer, appellee here, under the “dismemberment” provision of his insurance policy. The claim was rejected by appellee upon the ground that at the time of the accident appellant was operating an emergency vehicle within the meaning of an exclusionary clause con tained in the policy of insurance. That clause excludes coverage while the insured is engaged in the operation, loading or unloading of “a commercial automobile, ambulance, fire truck, police car or other emergency vehicle”. Upon suit being filed, the trial judge granted appellee’s motion for summary final judgment, thus this appeal.
Appellant’s attorneys have favored us with an excellent brief carefully analyzing and dissecting the exclusionary clause, citing numerous cases, concluding that the police motorcycle being operated by appellant at the time of the accident resulting in his injuries was not, in the context there used, an “emergency vehicle”. His oral argument was equally as well prepared and presented. However, the law is well settled that the language employed in a contract of insurance, and other contracts for that matter, should be read in the light of the skill and experience of ordinary people and resort should not be made to uncommon meanings nor contextual distortion. An unambiguous contract of insurance does not require construction and must be enforced as' written. (Midwest Mutual Insurance Company v. Santiesteban, Fla.1973, 287 So. 2d 665).
We conclude that the exclusionary clause involved sub judice is not ambiguous and that a police motorcycle, particularly while being operated in response to an officer’s call for assistance, is indeed an “emergency vehicle”.
The summary final judgment entered by the learned and able trial judge in favor of the defendant in the trial court, appellee here, is
Affirmed.
Appellant’s motion for attorney’s fees incident to this appeal is denied.
BOYER, C. J., MILLS, J., and MELVIN, WOODROW M., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Patience R. Morgan v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 382 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…e policy coverage. Defendant urges, and we agree, that the coverage provisions are unambiguous and must be construed as written. Brown v. Gulf Life Insurance Company, 343 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Stewart v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, 316 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). Moreover, in construing the provision of insurance contracts, courts are bound to give the language its plain, normally accepted meaning. Hertz Corporation v. Pugh, 354 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Equitable Life Assurance So…
-
Morrison Assurance Co. v. The Sch. Bd. OF Suwannee Cnty., 414 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…light of the skill and experience of ordinary people, and resort should not be made to uncommon meanings nor contextual distortion. Midwest Mutual Insurance Co. v. Santiesteban, 287 So. 2d 665 (Fla.1973); Stewart v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co., 316 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). The exclusionary clause is plain and unambiguous on its face, leaving no room for construction. Application of the plain-meaning rule and common sense leads to the reasonable conclusion that running the 50-yard dash in a physic…
-
Wometco Enters., Inc. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 364 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See United States Fire Insurance Co. v. Morejon, 338 So. 2d 223 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); Stewart v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co., 316 So. 2d 598 (Fla.1st DCA 1975); Rakoff v. World Insurance Co., 191 So. 2d 476 (Fla.3d DCA 1966).…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Midwest Mut. Ins. Co. v. Santiesteban, 287 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1973)