Industriales Nicaraguenses Chipirul, S.A. v. Switzerland General Insurance Corp. of New York

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Industriales Nicaraguenses Chipirul, S.A. v. Switzerland General Insurance Corp. of New York

443 So. 2d 1062, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11415

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 17, 1984

DocketNo. 82-752

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 443 So. 2d 1062 (Industriales Nicaraguenses Chipirul, S.A. v. Switzerland General Insurance Corp. of New York) 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

Industriales Nicaraguenses Chipirul, S.A. v. Switzerland General Insurance Corp. of New York, 443 So. 2d 1062, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11415 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final summary judgment for the defendant insurer in an action by the plaintiff insured for recovery under a marine insurance policy for the loss of a cargo of peanuts shipped to Nicaragua. The trial court entered final summary judgment for the defendant insurer Switzerland General Insurance Corporation of New York on the sole ground that the plaintiff insured Industriales Nicaragüens-es had impaired the insurer’s subrogation rights in violation of clause 33 of the marine insurance policy by failing to file suit against a potential third-party tortfeasor, the shipping line, for the loss of the cargo of peanuts. The plaintiff insured appeals.

We conclude that the plaintiff insured did not impair the subrogation rights of the defendant insurer under the subject marine insurance policy for two reasons. First, the failure to file suit against the shipping line, without more, was not an affirmative act of the insured which constituted an impairment of subrogation rights. See, e.g., Insurance Co. of North America v. Newtowne Manufacturing Co., 187 F.2d 675, 684 (1st Cir.1951) (Magruder, C.J.); Schmer v. Hawkeye-Security Insurance Co., 194 Neb. 94, 230 N.W.2d 216, 218 (1975). Second, the insurer denied coverage under the policy, made no request of the insured to file suit against the shipping line, and therefore, asserted no subrogation rights which were capable of being impaired. See, e.g., Meredith v. The Ionian Trader, 279 F.2d 471 (2d Cir.1960); Insurance Co. of North America v. Newtowne Manufacturing Co., supra, at 685; Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. v. Rojas, 409 So.2d 1166 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Indiana Insurance Co. v. Collins, 359 So.2d 916 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).

The final summary judgment under review is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final summary judgment for the defendant insurer in an action by the plaintiff insured for recovery under a marine insurance policy for the loss of a cargo of peanuts shipped to Nicaragua. The trial court entered final summary judgment for the defendant insurer Switzerland General Insurance Corporation of New York on the sole ground that the plaintiff insured Industriales Nicaragüens-es had impaired the insurer’s subrogation rights in violation of clause 33 of the marine insurance policy by failing to file suit against a potential third-party tortfeasor, the shipping line, for the loss of the cargo of peanuts. The plaintiff insured appeals.

We conclude that the plaintiff insured did not impair the subrogation rights of the defendant insurer under the subject marine insurance policy for two reasons. First, the failure to file suit against the shipping line, without more, was not an affirmative act of the insured which constituted an impairment of subrogation rights. See, e.g., Insurance Co. of North America v. Newtowne Manufacturing Co., 187 F.2d 675, 684 (1st Cir.1951) (Magruder, C.J.); Schmer v. Hawkeye-Security Insurance Co., 194 Neb. 94, 230 N.W.2d 216, 218 (1975). Second, the insurer denied coverage under the policy, made no request of the insured to file suit against the shipping line, and therefore, asserted no subrogation rights which were capable of being impaired. See, e.g., Meredith v. The Ionian Trader, 279 F.2d 471 (2d Cir.1960); Insurance Co. of North America v. Newtowne Manufacturing Co., supra, at 685; Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. v. Rojas, 409 So.2d 1166 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Indiana Insurance Co. v. Collins, 359 So.2d 916 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).

The final summary judgment under review is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

443 So. 2d 1062, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11415, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/industriales-nicaraguenses-chipirul-sa-v-switzerland-general-insurance-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack