Miami-Dade County v. Aviation Office of America

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Miami-Dade County v. Aviation Office of America

901 So. 2d 934, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 6012, 2005 WL 957185

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 27, 2005

DocketNo. 3D04-2113

StatusPublished

This text of 901 So. 2d 934 (Miami-Dade County v. Aviation Office of America) 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

Miami-Dade County v. Aviation Office of America, 901 So. 2d 934, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 6012, 2005 WL 957185 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

The trial court entered summary judgment that expenses incurred by Miami-Dade County in the course of remedying pollution at Miami International Airport as provided by a 1998 consent order and settlement agreement between the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the County (which included a 1993 consent agreement between the County Department of Environmental Resources Management and the Metropolitan Dade County Aviation Department) were not covered by two liability policies issued by United States Fire Insurance Company. The court held that the claims were excluded by the following provision:

This policy does not apply:

* * ⅜

(4) to any loss, cost or expense arising out of any governmental¹ direction or [935]*935request that the named insured test for, monitor, clean up, remove, contain, treat, detoxify or neutralize pollutants.

As the trial judge correctly stated:

Government direction exclusions have been enforced almost without exception in multiple U.S. jurisdictions. See, e.g., Cataract Metal Finishing, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 2003 WL 251955, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Jan.2, 2003); Feinberg v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 54 Mass. App.Ct. 587, 766 N.E.2d 888 (Mass.App.Ct.2002); Cortland Pump & Equip. Inc. v. Firemen’s Ins. Co. of Neivark, N.J., [194 A.D.2d 117] 604 N.Y.S.2d 633, 635-637 (App.Div.1993); Kimber Petroleum Corp. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 298 N.J.Super. 286, 689 A.2d 747 (N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div.1997); Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Flanders Elec. Motor Service, Inc., 1993 WL 764462, at *6 (S.D.Ind.1993), aff'd 40 F.3d 146 (7th Cir.1994); High Voltage Eng’g v. Federal Ins. Co., 981 F.2d 596 (1st Cir.1992). The simple import of this exclusion is to bar coverage for the exact costs at issue here arising from the DERM/FDEP Consent Orders. Therefore, ... the governmental direction exclusion bars all of the County’s claims against U.S. Fire in this litigation.

Affirmed.

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

SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

The trial court entered summary judgment that expenses incurred by Miami-Dade County in the course of remedying pollution at Miami International Airport as provided by a 1998 consent order and settlement agreement between the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the County (which included a 1993 consent agreement between the County Department of Environmental Resources Management and the Metropolitan Dade County Aviation Department) were not covered by two liability policies issued by United States Fire Insurance Company. The court held that the claims were excluded by the following provision:

This policy does not apply:

* * ⅜

(4) to any loss, cost or expense arising out of any governmental¹ direction or [935]*935request that the named insured test for, monitor, clean up, remove, contain, treat, detoxify or neutralize pollutants.

As the trial judge correctly stated:

Government direction exclusions have been enforced almost without exception in multiple U.S. jurisdictions. See, e.g., Cataract Metal Finishing, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 2003 WL 251955, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Jan.2, 2003); Feinberg v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 54 Mass. App.Ct. 587, 766 N.E.2d 888 (Mass.App.Ct.2002); Cortland Pump & Equip. Inc. v. Firemen’s Ins. Co. of Neivark, N.J., [194 A.D.2d 117] 604 N.Y.S.2d 633, 635-637 (App.Div.1993); Kimber Petroleum Corp. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 298 N.J.Super. 286, 689 A.2d 747 (N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div.1997); Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Flanders Elec. Motor Service, Inc., 1993 WL 764462, at *6 (S.D.Ind.1993), aff'd 40 F.3d 146 (7th Cir.1994); High Voltage Eng’g v. Federal Ins. Co., 981 F.2d 596 (1st Cir.1992). The simple import of this exclusion is to bar coverage for the exact costs at issue here arising from the DERM/FDEP Consent Orders. Therefore, ... the governmental direction exclusion bars all of the County’s claims against U.S. Fire in this litigation.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

901 So. 2d 934, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 6012, 2005 WL 957185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miami-dade-county-v-aviation-office-of-america-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack