Consolidated American Insurance Co. v. Bucolo

Supreme Court of Florida

Consolidated American Insurance Co. v. Bucolo

543 So. 2d 752, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 260, 1989 Fla. LEXIS 469, 1989 WL 55862

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedMay 25, 1989

DocketNo. 72844

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 543 So. 2d 752 (Consolidated American Insurance Co. v. Bucolo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Consolidated American Insurance Co. v. Bucolo, 543 So. 2d 752, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 260, 1989 Fla. LEXIS 469, 1989 WL 55862 (Fla. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

SHAW, Justice.

We have for review Consolidated American Insurance Co., Inc. v. Bucolo, 526 So.2d 147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), based upon conflict with United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. American Fire and Indemnity Co., 511 So.2d 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.Const.

Petitioner provided homeowners’ insurance to respondent’s mother which specifically excluded coverage for intentional acts by an insured. Respondent, who was an insured relative under the policy, was sued for committing sexual assaults during the period he lived in the home. The trial court ruled that petitioner had not timely asserted a coverage defense under section 627.-426(2), Florida Statutes (1985). The district court affirmed, citing AIU Insurance Co. v. Block Marina Investment, Inc., 512 So.2d 1118 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), where the court certified direct conflict with United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co.

We quash the decision of the district court and remand for proceedings consistent with AIU Insurance Co. v. Block Marina Investment, Inc., 544 So.2d 998 (Fla.1989).

It is so ordered.

EHRLICH, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SHAW, Justice.

We have for review Consolidated American Insurance Co., Inc. v. Bucolo, 526 So.2d 147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), based upon conflict with United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. American Fire and Indemnity Co., 511 So.2d 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.Const.

Petitioner provided homeowners’ insurance to respondent’s mother which specifically excluded coverage for intentional acts by an insured. Respondent, who was an insured relative under the policy, was sued for committing sexual assaults during the period he lived in the home. The trial court ruled that petitioner had not timely asserted a coverage defense under section 627.-426(2), Florida Statutes (1985). The district court affirmed, citing AIU Insurance Co. v. Block Marina Investment, Inc., 512 So.2d 1118 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), where the court certified direct conflict with United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co.

We quash the decision of the district court and remand for proceedings consistent with AIU Insurance Co. v. Block Marina Investment, Inc., 544 So.2d 998 (Fla.1989).

It is so ordered.

EHRLICH, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

543 So. 2d 752, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 260, 1989 Fla. LEXIS 469, 1989 WL 55862, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/consolidated-american-insurance-co-v-bucolo-fla-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack