Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

947 So. 2d 1194, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 676, 2007 WL 163098

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 24, 2007·No. No. 3D05-2232·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

FLETCHER, Judge.

Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York [Fidelity] appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of State Farm Fire & Casualty Company [State Farm] in this action for declaratory judgment on the issue of coverage. We reverse.

Fidelity issued an insurance policy to Mark Arnold providing motor vehicle and excess liability coverage for the policy period of September 15, 1999 to September 15, 2000. Arnold subsequently applied to State Farm for motor vehicle and excess liability coverage specifically requesting that the State Farm policy commence [1195]*1195on September 13, 2000. Accordingly, State Farm issued a binder as of that date. Fidelity’s policy provided for coverage to be afforded on a pro-rata basis where other excess policies applied. However, it also contained an automatic termination provision which stated: “If you obtain other insurance, any similar insurance provided by this policy will terminate on the effective date of the other insurance.” Arnold was involved in a serious accident on September 14, 2000 as a result of which he was sued. Without consulting with Fidelity, State Farm settled the action against Arnold for $5,000,000, the full amount of its excess coverage. Fidelity then commenced the instant declaratory judgment action seeking a determination that it owes no coverage for the loss and has no obligation to reimburse State Farm for any part of the settlement. State Farm counterclaimed for equitable subrogation. Upon motions for summary judgment, the trial court determined that Fidelity is liable for a pro rata share of the settlement.

Insurance contracts are interpreted according to the plain language of the policy, and, where a policy provision is clear and unambiguous, it should be enforced according to its terms. Taurus Holdings, Inc. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 913 So.2d 528 (Fla.2005). Here the clear and unambiguous terms of the automatic termination provision in the policy issued by Fidelity apply to preclude coverage. The provision effectively terminated Fidelity’s coverage one day prior to the subject accident.

We, therefore, reverse the judgment entered in favor of State Farm and remand for entry of a final judgment in favor of Fidelity.

Reversed and remanded.

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

FLETCHER, Judge.

Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York [Fidelity] appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of State Farm Fire & Casualty Company [State Farm] in this action for declaratory judgment on the issue of coverage. We reverse.

Fidelity issued an insurance policy to Mark Arnold providing motor vehicle and excess liability coverage for the policy period of September 15, 1999 to September 15, 2000. Arnold subsequently applied to State Farm for motor vehicle and excess liability coverage specifically requesting that the State Farm policy commence [1195]*1195on September 13, 2000. Accordingly, State Farm issued a binder as of that date. Fidelity’s policy provided for coverage to be afforded on a pro-rata basis where other excess policies applied. However, it also contained an automatic termination provision which stated: “If you obtain other insurance, any similar insurance provided by this policy will terminate on the effective date of the other insurance.” Arnold was involved in a serious accident on September 14, 2000 as a result of which he was sued. Without consulting with Fidelity, State Farm settled the action against Arnold for $5,000,000, the full amount of its excess coverage. Fidelity then commenced the instant declaratory judgment action seeking a determination that it owes no coverage for the loss and has no obligation to reimburse State Farm for any part of the settlement. State Farm counterclaimed for equitable subrogation. Upon motions for summary judgment, the trial court determined that Fidelity is liable for a pro rata share of the settlement.

Insurance contracts are interpreted according to the plain language of the policy, and, where a policy provision is clear and unambiguous, it should be enforced according to its terms. Taurus Holdings, Inc. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 913 So.2d 528 (Fla.2005). Here the clear and unambiguous terms of the automatic termination provision in the policy issued by Fidelity apply to preclude coverage. The provision effectively terminated Fidelity’s coverage one day prior to the subject accident.

We, therefore, reverse the judgment entered in favor of State Farm and remand for entry of a final judgment in favor of Fidelity.

Reversed and remanded.

Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 947 So. 2d 1194, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 676, 2007 WL 163098 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

947 So. 2d 1194 (Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related