Kohler v. Proprietors Insurance Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kohler v. Proprietors Insurance Co.

394 So. 2d 463, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19546

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 10, 1981

DocketNo. 80-542

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 394 So. 2d 463 (Kohler v. Proprietors Insurance Co.) 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

Kohler v. Proprietors Insurance Co., 394 So. 2d 463, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19546 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.

We affirm the summary final judgment in favor of Proprietors Insurance Company, issuers of an aircraft hull and liability poli[464]*464cy. The policy, under which Kohler and Poteet, co-owners of the aircraft, claimed a loss when the aircraft was taken by one Stiller,¹ excluded from coverage any operation of the aircraft “for which a charge is made.” It is undisputed that Kohler and Poteet required Stiller to make an hourly payment of $125.00 for use of the plane. The agreed-upon payment was a prerequisite to the use of the plane, not a gratuitous reimbursement of flight expenses, compare Pacific Indemnity Company v. Acel Delivery Services, Inc., 485 F.2d 1169 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 921, 94 S.Ct. 1422, 39 L.Ed.2d 476 (1979), with Houston Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Ivens, 338 F.2d 452 (5th Cir. 1964), and Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Marion L. Crist & Associates, Inc., 248 Ark. 1010, 455 S.W.2d 904 (1970), and, therefore, a charge within the language of the policy. That the required charge was to be paid to a third-party charitable organization does not affect the result. See Restatement of Contracts § 75(d)(2) (1932); Guaclides v. Kruse, 67 N.J.Super. 348, 170 A.2d 488 (1961).

In light of this disposition, we find it unnecessary to address whether the loss claimed was otherwise excluded from coverage.

Affirmed.

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

DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.

We affirm the summary final judgment in favor of Proprietors Insurance Company, issuers of an aircraft hull and liability poli[464]*464cy. The policy, under which Kohler and Poteet, co-owners of the aircraft, claimed a loss when the aircraft was taken by one Stiller,¹ excluded from coverage any operation of the aircraft “for which a charge is made.” It is undisputed that Kohler and Poteet required Stiller to make an hourly payment of $125.00 for use of the plane. The agreed-upon payment was a prerequisite to the use of the plane, not a gratuitous reimbursement of flight expenses, compare Pacific Indemnity Company v. Acel Delivery Services, Inc., 485 F.2d 1169 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 921, 94 S.Ct. 1422, 39 L.Ed.2d 476 (1979), with Houston Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Ivens, 338 F.2d 452 (5th Cir. 1964), and Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Marion L. Crist & Associates, Inc., 248 Ark. 1010, 455 S.W.2d 904 (1970), and, therefore, a charge within the language of the policy. That the required charge was to be paid to a third-party charitable organization does not affect the result. See Restatement of Contracts § 75(d)(2) (1932); Guaclides v. Kruse, 67 N.J.Super. 348, 170 A.2d 488 (1961).

In light of this disposition, we find it unnecessary to address whether the loss claimed was otherwise excluded from coverage.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

394 So. 2d 463, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kohler-v-proprietors-insurance-co-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack