NORMAN M. ATKINS, JR., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
BELLEFONTE 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 addresses whether a Bellefonte insurance policy covering Grant School's operations included coverage for an automobile collision where an escaped minor allegedly contributed to the accident. The court held that the policy's exclusion for motor vehicle operation precluded coverage, affirming the dismissal of Bellefonte.
The Bellefonte insurance policy did not afford coverage for the automobile collision because the plaintiff's damages resulted directly from the school's use of a motor vehicle. The policy's exclusion for motor vehicle operation barred coverage regardless of the negligence alleged in allowing the minor's escape.
[1] An insurance policy exclusion for the "ownership, maintenance, operation, use, loading or unloading of any motor vehicle" does not provide coverage for damages arising fr…
[2] Damages resulting from the use of a motor vehicle are not covered by an insurance policy that excludes coverage for the operation or use of a motor vehicle, even if the u…
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“We hold that the policy did not cover the automobile collision and we affirm.”
The court's definitive holding that the Bellefonte policy's exclusion barred coverage for the motor vehicle collision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNorman M. Atkins, Jr. was injured when his automobile was struck by a vehicle owned and operated by Grant School of Miami, Inc. An employee was return…
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 Insurance Policy Exclusion cases and more on FLexlaw
PEARSON, Judge.
The plaintiff Norman M. Atkins, Jr. was injured when his automobile was struck by an automobile owned by Grant School of Miami, Inc., and operated by an employee of the School. The complaint alleges that the collision occurred when the employee was returning to the School with an escaped minor, Scott Dackerman. It is alleged that Dackerman “ . . .so carelessly conducted himself as to contribute to the accident . . . ” This is an appeal from an order dismissing one of the defendants, Bellefonte Insurance Company. The issue involved is whether the Bellefonte insurance policy which contained an exclusion that the policy did not apply “ . . .to the ownership, maintenance, operation, use, loading or unloading of any motor vehicle, trailer, watercraft or aircraft” afforded coverage or the duty to defend the suit by Atkins.
We hold that the policy did not cover the automobile collision and we affirm.
The cause is before us upon the appeal of the plaintiff and a joinder in appeal by defendant, Grant School of Miami, Inc., and a second joinder in appeal by defendant Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company. Defendant Grant School of Miami, Inc., has filed an assignment of error directed to an order which denied Grant School’s and Lumbermens’ motion to file a third party complaint against Bellefonte Insurance Company. The assignment is not argued in appellant Atkins’ brief, although the brief is signed by the parties who joined in the appeal. The assignment of error upon joinder in appeal need not be considered further. See Fla.App. Rule 3.7(i) and TriCounty Produce Distributors, Inc. v. Northeast Production Credit Association, 147 So. 2d 587 (Fla.1st DCA 1962).
The plaintiff urges that the allegations of the complaint and the amended second amendment to the complaint are sufficient to show that the alleged negligence of the School in allowing the minor’s escape and in not properly handling the return of the minor to the School fell within Bellefonte’s coverage. Thereupon, it is argued that the damages from the automobile collision which followed from the escape and the improper handling of the return constitute damages that are partially covered by Bellefonte’s policy. See Garden Sanctuary, Inc. v. Insurance Company of North America, 292 So. 2d 75 (Fla.2d DCA 1974); C.
A. Fielland, Inc. v. Fidelity Casualty Company of New York, 297 So. 2d 122 (Fla.2d DCA 1974); and Stevens v. Horne, 325 So. 2d 459 (Fla.4th DCA 1975).
We hold that the cited cases do not apply because the plaintiff’s damages resulted from the use of a motor vehicle. Not only was the plaintiff’s damage a primary consequence of the School’s use of the motor vehicle, but also it could not have occurred without the use of the School’s motor vehicle. The events which brought the motor vehicle to that time and place were not legal causes of the collision. Cf. National Indemnity Co. v. Corbo, 248 So. 2d 238 (Fla.3d DCA 1971); and Valdes v. Smalley, 303 So. 2d 342 (Fla.3d DCA 1974).
The insurance contract determines the conditions and limits of coverage, see Fernandez v. United States Fidelity and Guarantee Company, 308 So. 2d 49 (Fla.3d DCA 1975), unless its provisions are contrary to law. See Zipperer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 254 F. 2d 853 (5th Cir. 1958).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Earnest Hagen and Jerry M. Richardson v. AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co., 675 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…ted this theory, holding that any negligent entrustment necessarily arose out of the ownership, operation or use of the vehicle within the meaning of the exclusionary clause of the homeowner’s policy. Also in Atkins v. Bellefonte Insurance Company, 342 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), the court was confronted with the same exclusionary clause when considering an injury which resulted from a collision involving two vehicles. The defendant school was sued not because the improper operation of its vehicle caused…1 / 2
-
Westmoreland v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 704 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…ided and that it is consistent with other decisions expressing the law in this State. See, e.g., Volkswagen Ins. Co. v. Dung Ba Nguyen, 405 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), pet. for rev. den., 418 So. 2d 1280 (Fla.1982); Atkins v. Bellefonte Ins. Co., 342 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Because plaintiffs injuries clearly arose out of the ‘operation’ or ‘use’ of an ‘automobile ... operated by [a] person in the course of his employment by [the] insured,’ the exclusion applies.” 498 So. 2d at 647. None of the aut…
-
Smith v. Gen. Accident Ins. Co. of Am., 641 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…hiring gave rise to Insurer’s duty to defend Count II of the lawsuit. In light of the established rule that the duty to defend is separate and more extensive than the duty to pay, we disagree with the third district in Atkins v. Bellefonte Ins. Co., 342 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), and acknowledge conflict to the extent Atkins conflicts with our opinion. Accordingly, we affirm that portion of the summary judgment finding that Insurer has no duty to defend the automobile negligence claim. We reverse that po…
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
- Nat'l Indem. Co. v. Corbo, 248 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- C. A. Fielland, Inc. v. Fid. & Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 297 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Valdes v. Smalley, 303 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Felton A. Brooks v. State, 292 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Stevens v. Horne, 325 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Peterson v. Moore, 254 F.2d 853 (3d Cir. 1958)
- Zipperer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 254 F.2d 853 (5th Cir. 1958)
- Tri-County Produce Distribs., Inc. v. Ne. Prod. Credit Ass'n, 147 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)
- Fernandez v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 308 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)