JOHN JOSEPH CAPOFERRI, AND AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY CO., APPELLANTS,
v.
ALLSTATE 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.
This case concerns whether an insurance company has a duty to defend an insured when the underlying complaint alleges intentional acts, which are excluded from the policy. The court held that an insurer is not obligated to defend if the complaint's allegations fall outside the policy's coverage.
No, an insurance company has no duty to defend a lawsuit against its insured if the complaint, on its face, alleges facts that fall outside the coverage of the insurance policy.
[1] An insurer's duty to defend an insured is determined by the allegations in the complaint filed against the insured.
[2] A liability insurance company has no duty to defend a suit where the complaint on its face alleges facts that fall outside the policy's coverage.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“In Florida, the generally recognized rule is that the insurer is under a duty to defend a suit against an insured only where the complaint alleges a state of facts within the coverage of the policy.”
Establishes the general rule regarding an insurer's duty to defend.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohn Capoferri, driving a car insured by Allstate, was involved in an accident with Charles Dimon. Dimon sued Capoferri, alleging a willful assault. 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 Intentional Acts Exclusion cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
Appellants, defendants below, bring this appeal from a final summary judgment entered in favor of appellee, third party defendant below.
On March 10, 1973, appellant John J. Capoferri was driving, with express permission, an automobile owned by Vanessa Gordon. Upon leaving the Gulfstream Race Track in Broward County, Florida, Capoferri was involved in an automobile accident with another vehicle driven by Charles Dimon. As a result of that accident, Capoferri was charged with careless driving and later pleaded guilty to the charge in Traffic Court.
Following the accident, Capoferri reported the event to appellee Allstate Insurance Company and to appellant Aetna Casualty & Surety Company. Allstate had in full force and effect an insurance policy covering the automobile Capoferri was driving at the time of the accident, and Aetna had in full force and effect an automobile liability insurance policy covering Capoferri personally.
On May 21, 1973, Charles Dimon, plaintiff below, filed a complaint against Capo-ferri alleging that he willfully assaulted Dimon by deliberately driving his automobile into the automobile driven by Dimon, and asked for both compensatory and punitive damages. Allstate’s investigator took a sworn statement from Capoferri, in which he stated the mishap was caused by his foot accidentally slipping off the brake pedal and striking the accelerator and not by any willful act on his part.
’ Allstate initially undertook to represent Capoferri in the lawsuit as to any claims for compensatory damage, but not for punitive damages. Later, Allstate advised Capoferii by letter that the Allstate insurance policy specifically excluded bodily injury or property damage caused intentionally by the insured. This letter further advised Capoferri that the attorneys for Allstate would no longer represent him and that he should obtain his own counsel.
On January 29, 1974, Capoferri’s attorney filed an answer to Dimon’s complaint and filed a third party complaint against Allstate for breach of their insurance contract, seeking attorneys fees and expenses for defending the main action and prosecuting the third party complaint, and also indemnity from any judgment rendered against Capoferri as -a result of Allstate’s breach of contract.
The trial of Dimon’s claim against Ca-poferri took place on April 24, 1974, and the jury returned a verdict for Capoferri. Subsequently a final judgment was entered on his behalf.
On July 19, 1974, Allstate filed a motion for summary judgment on the third party complaint. The motion was granted and a summary final judgment for Allstate was entered on November 7, 1974. From this judgment, appellants bring their appeal.
Appellants contend that the trial court erred in entering its summary final judgment because an automobile insurance company cannot lawfully withdraw coverage and refuse to continue in the defense of an insured, based upon the bare allegations of a complaint charging the insured with assault and battery, when the company has substantial evidence from its own investigations to show that the lawsuit is groundless.
Appellee contends that the trial court was correct in entering summary final judgment in its favor, because Dimon’s sworn complaint alleged only an intentional act and Allstate’s policy specifically excluded coverage for bodily injury caused intentionally by the insured.
In Florida, the generally recognized rule is that the insurer is under a duty to defend a suit against an insured only where the complaint alleges a state of facts within the coverage of the policy. A liability insurance company has no duty to defend a suit where the complaint upon its face alleges a state of facts which fails to bring the case within the coverage of the policy. Consequently, the company is not required to defend if it would not be bound to indemnify the insured even though the plaintiff should prevail in his action. Consolidated Mutual Insurance Company v. Ivy Liquors, Inc., Fla.App.1966, 185 So. 2d 187; C. A. Fielland, Inc. v. Fidelity & Cas. Co. of New York, Fla.App.1974, 297 So. 2d 122; Garden Sanctuary, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of No. Amer., Fla.App.1974, 292 So. 2d 75; St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Thomas, Fla.App.1973, 273 So. 2d 117; and Bennett v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, Fla.App.1961, 132 So. 2d 788.
Here, the only cause of action alleged in the Dimon’s complaint was one for intentional acts by Capoferri. The record reflects that intentional acts by the insured were not within the coverage of the Allstate automobile liability policy. Even if Dimon had proved all of the allegations in his complaint and taken a judgment against Capoferri, based on the rule set forth above, Allstate would have been under no obligation to indemnify Capoferri. Therefore, since Allstate had no duty to defend in this matter, the trial court properly granted judgment for Allstate on its motion for summary judgment.
Further, the initial entry of appearance by Allstate’s attorneys for appellant Capoferri does not of itself constitute a waiver of a defense to it under the policy it has issued. The company is entitled to a reasonable time in which to investigate and determine whether it desires to avail itself of any defense that may be found to exist. It appears to us that Allstate and its attorneys acted reasonably prompt in making its disclaimer and withdrawing from the action below. See Consolidated Mutual Ins. Co. v. Ivy Liquors, Inc., Fla. App.1966, 185 So. 2d 187.
We have considered the record, all points in the briefs and arguments of counsel in the light of the controlling principles of law, and have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated. Therefore, for the reasons stated and upon the authorities cited, the final summary judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
The Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Lenox Liquors, Inc., 358 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 1977)…e. This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari granted to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, 342 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1977), which conflicts directly with Capoferri v. Allstate Insurance Company, 322 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1975), thereby vesting jurisdiction in this Court pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution. Carrying a BB and pellet gun, McClen-don, a thirteen-year-old minor, and another entered respondent’s liquor store. Believ…1 / 2
-
Baron OIL Co. v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 470 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…nce Co. v. Applestein, 377 So. 2d 229. “Thus, the ‘actual facts’ of the situation are not pertinent to the issues involved in the case before us.” Federal Insurance Co. v. Applestein, 377 So. 2d at 233. See also, Capoferri v. Allstate Insurance Co., 322 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Next, we must consider whether Nationwide was later excused from defending by reason of the amended complaint’s allegations of Jones’s employment with Baron, notwithstanding the clear-cut rule quoted from Kings Point West, Inc.…1 / 2
-
Fed. Ins. Co. v. Allan H. Applestein & the Allan H. Applestein Found. Tr. & Robert Mackin, 377 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…on that the company is not required to defend a particular action is that “it would not be bound to indemnify the insured even though the plaintiff should prevail in his action” under the allegations of the complaint. Capoferri v. Allstate Ins. Co., 322 So. 2d 625, 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). It has thus been uniformly held that a determination that there is no duty to defend against a particular claim carries with it the inevitable conclusion that there is none to pay an eventual judgment which may be entered up…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- ST. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Thomas, 273 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Bennett v. Fid. & Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 132 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)
- C. A. Fielland, Inc. v. Fid. & Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 297 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Consol. Mut. Ins. Co. v. IVY Liquors, Inc., 185 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Felton A. Brooks v. State, 292 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)