Foremost Insurance Company v. DR

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Foremost Insurance Company v. DR

83 So. 3d 777, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 16753

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 21, 2011

Docket5D10-697, 5D10-2733

StatusPublished

This text of 83 So. 3d 777 (Foremost Insurance Company v. DR) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Foremost Insurance Company v. DR, 83 So. 3d 777, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 16753 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges a judgment imposing liability under a mobile homeowner’s insurance policy arising from the sexual battery and molestation of D.R., a minor, by the named insured, D.M., who was D.R.’s stepfather at all relevant times. Although Appellant raises several arguments to avoid liability, we need only address its contention that of D.R.’s claims are expressly excluded under the language of the policy. The policy excludes “[cjlaims which are expected or intended by any of you or performed at any of your direction.” All of the causes of action, however labeled, are based upon the factual contention that D.M. had unlawful and inappropriate sexual relations and contact with D.R. These claims are clearly excluded by the terms of the policy. Landis v. Allstate Ins. Co., 546 So.2d 1051 (Fla.1989).

Accordingly, we reverse both the judgment for damages and the separate judgment awarding attorney’s fees. 1

REVERSED.

TORPY, COHEN and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.

1

. We now consolidate these appeals.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges a judgment imposing liability under a mobile homeowner’s insurance policy arising from the sexual battery and molestation of D.R., a minor, by the named insured, D.M., who was D.R.’s stepfather at all relevant times. Although Appellant raises several arguments to avoid liability, we need only address its contention that of D.R.’s claims are expressly excluded under the language of the policy. The policy excludes “[cjlaims which are expected or intended by any of you or performed at any of your direction.” All of the causes of action, however labeled, are based upon the factual contention that D.M. had unlawful and inappropriate sexual relations and contact with D.R. These claims are clearly excluded by the terms of the policy. Landis v. Allstate Ins. Co., 546 So.2d 1051 (Fla.1989).

Accordingly, we reverse both the judgment for damages and the separate judgment awarding attorney’s fees. 1

REVERSED.

TORPY, COHEN and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.

1

. We now consolidate these appeals.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 So. 3d 777, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 16753, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foremost-insurance-company-v-dr-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack