RAYMOND PRIETO, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
RESERVE 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.
Prieto appeals from a judgment denying insurance coverage under a contractors general liability policy for damages arising from a building collapse in 1974, arguing the policy covered the negligent 1971 construction work that caused the collapse. The court affirmed the denial of coverage, holding that the "occurrence" under the policy was the 1974 collapse itself, which occurred after the policy terminated, not the 1971 construction work.
The court held that under the plain language of the insurance policy defining "occurrence" as "an accident which results during the policy period in bodily injury or property damage," the occurrence was the building collapse itself, not the prior negligent construction work. Because the collapse occurred after the policy terminated, there was no coverage.
[1] An "occurrence" under a liability insurance policy is defined by the event that results in bodily injury or property damage, not the underlying negligent act that may hav…
[2] Coverage under a liability insurance policy is determined by the date of the accident or occurrence that causes the injury or damage, not the date of the negligent act or…
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“an accident . which results during the policy period in bodily injury or property damage”
The policy's definition of covered occurrence, limiting coverage to accidents resulting during the policy period
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePrieto, a licensed contractor, performed construction work on a Miami building in 1971. The building collapsed on August 8, 1974, resulting in deaths …
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 Occurrence-Based Coverage cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an action for a declaratory decree as to coverage under an insurance policy. Raymond Prieto, Jr., plaintiff-insured, takes this appeal from an adverse final judgment on the pleadings, denying coverage to him under a policy of contractors general liability insurance issued by defendant, Reserve Insurance Company. A second defendant, the Continental Insurance Company is not a party to this appeal.
This action stems from the collapse on August 8, 1974, of a building located in Miami, following which numerous wrongful death and personal injury lawsuits were filed. Prieto was named as a defendant in each of those suits. The allegations in the complaints concerning Prieto were that the collapse of the building and the resultant deaths and injuries were caused by negligent and unworkmanlike construction performed by Prieto, a licensed contractor, when he performed services in his capacity as a contractor on the building in 1971.
Reserve denied coverage under the policy of contractors general liability insurance issued to Prieto, claiming that the accident occurred outside the policy period, in that the policy commenced on July 8, 1969, and terminated on July 8, 1974. Based on Reserve’s denial of coverage, Prieto filed this complaint for declaratory relief, asserting that he is entitled to coverage under the policy in question. Reserve filed an answer denying coverage, and then moved for a judgment on the pleadings. Pursuant to the motion, the trial court entered a final judgment for Reserve, denying coverage for the damages arising out of the collapse of the building on August 8, 1974.
In this appeal, Prieto contends that the fact that the collapse occurred subsequent to the date of the termination of the policy does not change the fact that it stemmed from an occurrence which took place during existence of the policy, and thus, is covered by it. Prieto’s argument is that the occurrence was the negligence, if any, in the construction repairs or work done on the building in 1971, and that this was the cause of the dangerous condition resulting in deaths and injuries in the 1974 collapse. Prieto alleges that he obtained the policy of contractors general liability insurance in order to comply with Section 10-19 of the Dade County Metropolitan Code, which provides that all contractors holding certificates of competency shall maintain at all times, public liability insurance for bodily injury and property damage.
By its terms, the policy issued by Reserve provided coverage for an occurrence, which is defined therein as “an accident . which results during the policy period in bodily injury or property damage. . .”
We are unable to agree with Prieto’s contention that the occurrence in this case was the negligence, if any, in the construction work. We hold, based on the language of the insurance policy, that the “accident” in this case was the collapse of the building, and that it took place after the termination of the policy period. Therefore, the trial court did not err in entering final judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendant Reserve.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Travelers Ins. Co. v. C. J. Gayfer's & Co., Inc., 366 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…ligence must take place during the policy period. The term “occurrence” is commonly understood to mean the event in which negligence manifests itself in property damage or bodily injury, and it is used in that sense here. Prieto v. Reserve Ins. Co., 340 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. Addison, supra, at 886. The Travelers policy defines occurrence, consistent with the common meaning, as: an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to conditions, which results in bodily inj…
-
United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Am. Fire & Indem. Co., 511 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…ll Binko Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. v. Compass Ins. Co., Inc., 385 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Aetna Ins. Co. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 457 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) rev. denied, 462 So. 2d 1108 (Fla.1985); Prieto v. Reserve Ins. Co., 340 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1977). . Travelers Ins. Co. v. C.J. Gayfer’s & Co., Inc., 366 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979); New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Addison, 169 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964); Nielson v. Travelers Indem. Co., 174 F.Supp. 648 (N.D.Iowa 1959)…
-
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Marvin Dev. Corp., 805 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…pment breached an implied warranty with respect to the fitness of the property. See, e.g., K-C Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Shelby Mut. Ins. Co., 434 So. 2d 1004, 1006-07 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Another case providing guidance is Prieto v. Reserve Insurance Co., 340 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). In Prieto, the court affirmed a denial of insurance coverage for death and injuries resulting from the collapse of a building. The insurance policy provided coverage for an occurrence or an accident that resulted in bodily injury…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence