Indemnity Casualty & Property, Ltd. v. Hunter

752 So. 2d 658, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 338, 2000 WL 35892
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJanuary 19, 2000
DocketNo. 3D99-564
StatusPublished

This text of 752 So. 2d 658 (Indemnity Casualty & Property, Ltd. v. Hunter) 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
Indemnity Casualty & Property, Ltd. v. Hunter, 752 So. 2d 658, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 338, 2000 WL 35892 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinions

FLETCHER, Judge.

Indemnity Casualty & Property, Ltd. [Indemnity] and Insurance General Management Corporation [IGMC] appeal from a final adverse summary judgment. We affirm.

When the tow rope on a parasail broke free from the towing boat, vacationer Tommy Hunter grabbed the trailing tow line in an attempt to rescue the parasailer. He was lifted many feet into the air, fell, and sustained serious injuries, but successfully rescued the wayward parasailer. Mr. Hunter and his wife asserted a claim for damages against Island Parasail, the operator of the parasailing business. Island Parasail submitted the claim to its insurer, Indemnity, which denied coverage and refused to defend.

Island Parasail and the Hunters subsequently entered into an agreement whereby Island Parasail agreed to entry of a $750,000 final judgment against it. Island Parasail then assigned to the Hunters its rights, claims, and causes of action against Indemnity, IGMC, and the agent who sold it the policy. The Hunters then filed this action against the three for failure to defend, improper denial of coverage, negligent misrepresentation, negligence and breach of contract.1

Neither Indemnity nor IGMC is licensed as an insurer or certified to do business in Florida. After Indemnity failed to post the bond generally required of an unauthorized insurer by section 626.908, Florida Statutes (1997), the trial court struck Indemnity’s pleadings and ordered it to post a $700,000 bond, which it failed to do. The trial court subsequently struck IGMC’s pleadings as well, subject to reinstatement if the parties posted a $750,000 bond. Neither did. The trial court then granted the Hunters’ motion for default against the defendants. Indemnity and IGMC moved to vacate the default and to reconsider the order requiring the bond, arguing that a statutory exemption to the bond requirement applied. The court disagreed and entered final summary judgment in favor of the Hunters against Indemnity and IGMC, which judgment is the subject of this appeal.

Indemnity and IGMC assert that the policy issued to Island Parasail is what is known in the industry as a “wet marine and transportation insurance” policy as defined in section 624.607, Florida Statutes (1997).2 They argue that because the poli[660]*660cy is “wet marine,” the insurer is therefore exempt from the requirement to post bond, pursuant to section 626.912, Florida Statutes.3

Contrary to the contentions of Indemnity and IGMC, we conclude that the policy is more than just a wet marine policy. It contains endorsement 8000, Single or Double Parasailing Endorsement, which reads,

“In consideration for the premium charged it is hereby understood and agreed that parasailing coverage is included with permission for single para-sailing. Deductible applicable to protection and indemnity is $1,000.00 per person per occurrence. As of the effective date of this endorsement, the # 500 endorsement is deleted from the policy.[4] Otherwise, no coverage is afforded. Double parasailing includes single parasailing.”

This endorsement adds a specialized liability insurance — for an amusement activity — to the policy. “Liability” insurance, of course, is a form of “casualty” insurance, see section 624.605(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1997), which is distinguished from the other kinds of insurance. Section 624.6011, Florida Statutes (1997).5 The insurance coverages within the subject policy thus fall within the definitions of two kinds of insurance. Such a result is contemplated by section 624.601, Florida Statutes (1997), which provides that insurance coverages may in some cases come within two or more definitions. Sections 624.601-624.6085, Florida Statutes (1997), provide these definitions, including “wet marine” and “casualty” insurance, for example. Section 624.601 also provides that “the inclusion of such coverage within one definition shall not exclude it from béing considered as any other kind of insurance, the definition of which reasonably includes such coverage.”

This is indeed what we find when we examine the policy issued by Indemnity to Island Parasail: two types of insurance- — • “wet marine” and Endorsement 8000, the parasailing liability insurance. See Florida Ins. Guaranty Assoc. v. Pilings & Structures, Inc., 616 So.2d 532 (Fla. 1st DCA) (inclusion of maritime coverage endorsement in marine protection and indemnity insurance could also be considered casualty insurance for purposes of the Jones Act, where by statute insurance definitions are not mutually exclusive); review denied, 626 So.2d 205 (Fla.1993). That being so, the exemption from bond may apply to the wet marine portion of the policy, but it does not apply to the liability portion.

As unauthorized liability insurers in Florida, Indemnity and IGMC were required to either 1) procure a certificate of authority to transact insurance in this State, or 2) post bond in the full amount fixed by the court below to fulfill the public policy purposes of section 626.904, Florida Statutes (1997), et seq., which is to ensure that an unauthorized insurer selling insurance in Florida acts responsibly to pay any [661]*661judgment entered against it in this jurisdiction. See § 626.908, Fla. Stat. (1997).

Affirmed.

JORGENSON, J., concurs.

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

Related

Florida Insurance Guaranty Ass'n v. Pilings & Structures, Inc.
616 So. 2d 532 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
752 So. 2d 658, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 338, 2000 WL 35892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/indemnity-casualty-property-ltd-v-hunter-fladistctapp-2000.