GOLDEN ISLES HOSPITAL, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Golden Isles Hospital sought recovery from its excess insurer, Continental Casualty Company, for losses within the primary insurance limit after the primary insurer became insolvent. The court held that the excess insurer is not liable because the collectibility of primary insurance is determined as of the date of the occurrence, not when the claim is made or paid.
The excess insurer is not liable. The collectibility of primary insurance is determined as of the date of the occurrence fixing liability, not the date of judgment or payment. Therefore, if the primary insurer was solvent at the time of the accident, the excess insurer's exclusion of liability for amounts due from the primary insurer remains valid even if the primary insurer later becomes insolvent.
[1] An excess insurer is not liable for a loss less than primary coverage when the primary insurer becomes insolvent after the occurrence of the accident if the policy terms…
[2] The collectibility of primary insurance is determined as of the date of the occurrence fixing liability, as between two insurance companies.
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“as between two insurance companies, the collectibility of primary insurance is to be determined as of the date of the occurrence fixing liability”
This establishes the governing rule that determines when the primary insurer's solvency and collectibility must be assessed for purposes of excess insurance coverage.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGolden Isles Hospital had primary insurance coverage and excess/umbrella coverage with Continental Casualty Company (CNA) for amounts exceeding the pr…
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 Primary Insurance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal, the appellant, Golden Isles Hospital, advances the proposition of law that its excess insurer, Continental Casualty Company (CNA), is liable for the Hospital’s loss which is less than the primary insurance coverage specified because the primary insurer became insolvent after the occurrence of the accident out of which liability arose. We hold that under the terms of the Hospital’s policy, it was the Plospital’s duty to keep in force the primary coverage. We affirm.
The Hospital’s statement of its position is:
“Reduced to its simplest terms, the HOSPITAL’S position is as follows:
“(a) CNA insured the HOSPITAL for losses (up to $1,000,000) in excess of the ‘amount recoverable’ from primary insurance;
“(b) CNA’s umbrella excess liability attached at the time of entry of judgment against the HOSPITAL or at the time of satisfaction of that judgment (it matters not which), in accordance with its own |j 1(a) and (b) and |j 10;
“(c) At that time, the ‘amount recoverable’ by the HOSPITAL from its primary insurer was zero;
“(d) Hence, CNA is obligated to indemnify the HOSPITAL for its full $60,000 loss.”
It appears to us that the apparent fault in this argument is that it proposes that the court change the terms of the policy so that the excess insurer would be made the guarantor of the solvency of the primary insurer chosen by the policyholder. The judgment is affirmed upon the rule that, as between two insurance companies, the collectibility of primary insurance is to be determined as of the date of the occurrence fixing liability. Therefore, it follows that as of the date of the accident there was a valid exclusion of liability upon Continental’s policy for the amount due from the primary insurer. See State Farm Mutual Insurance Company v. Vines, Fla.App.1966, 193 So. 2d 180; Friedfeld v. Royal Indemnity Company, Fla.App. 1964, 167 So. 2d 586.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shapiro v. Associated Int'l Ins. Co., 899 F.2d 1116 (11th Cir. 1990)…ary, we must follow the rule recognized by the Third District Court of Appeal “that ... the collectibility of primary insurance is to be determined as of the date of the occurrence fixing liability.” Golden Isles Hosp., Inc. v. Continental Cas. Co., 327 So. 2d 789, 790 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1976). Applying the Golden Isles rule, we hold that Associated is not obligated to pay the remaining $750,000 of the judgment. According to the Shapiros’ complaint and The California Club’s amended complaint, Irving Shapiro wa…
-
Cont'l Marble & Granite v. Canal Ins. Co., 785 F.2d 1258 (5th Cir. 1986)…propounds. Imposing the duty of indemnification on Canal would, in effect, transmogrify the policy into one guaranteeing the solvency of whatever primary insurer the insured might choose. See Golden Isles Hospitals, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co., 327 So. 2d 789, 790 (Fla.App.1976). An excess liability insurer obviously does not anticipate this heavy onus: Excess or secondary coverage is coverage whereby, under the terms of the policy, liability attaches only after a predetermined amount of primary coverag…
-
Calder Race Course, Inc. v. Ill. Union Ins., 714 F. Supp. 1183 (S.D. Fla. 1989)…1982. This court recognizes the fact that under the law in Florida, one insurance carrier is not the guarantor of the solvency of another carrier chosen by the policyholder. See, e.g., Golden Isles Hospital, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co., 327 So.2d 789 (Fla. Dist.Ct.App.1976). But case law has also established that each insurance carrier that is contractually and legally obligated to an insured should remain so bound. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Market Ins. Co., 296 So.2d 555, 558 (Fla.Ap…
Authorities Cited
- Mid-State Homes, Inc. v. Montgomery, 167 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- France v. Hart, 193 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)