Remus v. Scottsdale Insurance Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Remus v. Scottsdale Insurance Co.

843 So. 2d 349, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 5678, 2003 WL 1916810

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 23, 2003

DocketNo. 3D02-2220

StatusPublished

This text of 843 So. 2d 349 (Remus v. Scottsdale 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

Remus v. Scottsdale Insurance Co., 843 So. 2d 349, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 5678, 2003 WL 1916810 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

Upon the holding that there was no coverage as a matter of law because the failure of the defendant-insured to secure worker’s compensation coverage, which was the basis of its asserted liability to the personal injury plaintiff, was not an “occurrence” as required by its liability policy, the summary judgment in favor of the insurer is affirmed. See American States Ins. Co. v. Pioneer Elec. Co., 85 F.Supp.2d 1337 (S.D.Fla.2000); Stein-Brief Group, Inc. v. Home Indem. Co., 65 Cal.App.4th 364, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 3 (1998); Reliance Ins. Co. v. Nick J. Giannini, Inc., 158 Ill.App.3d 657, 110 Ill.Dec. 578, 511 N.E.2d 755 (1987), appeal denied, 117 Ill.2d 553, 115 Ill.Dec. 409, 517 N.E.2d 1095 (1987). See generally Humana Worker’s Compensation Services v. Home Emergency Services, Inc., 842 So.2d 778 (Fla. 2003).

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

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

Upon the holding that there was no coverage as a matter of law because the failure of the defendant-insured to secure worker’s compensation coverage, which was the basis of its asserted liability to the personal injury plaintiff, was not an “occurrence” as required by its liability policy, the summary judgment in favor of the insurer is affirmed. See American States Ins. Co. v. Pioneer Elec. Co., 85 F.Supp.2d 1337 (S.D.Fla.2000); Stein-Brief Group, Inc. v. Home Indem. Co., 65 Cal.App.4th 364, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 3 (1998); Reliance Ins. Co. v. Nick J. Giannini, Inc., 158 Ill.App.3d 657, 110 Ill.Dec. 578, 511 N.E.2d 755 (1987), appeal denied, 117 Ill.2d 553, 115 Ill.Dec. 409, 517 N.E.2d 1095 (1987). See generally Humana Worker’s Compensation Services v. Home Emergency Services, Inc., 842 So.2d 778 (Fla. 2003).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

843 So. 2d 349, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 5678, 2003 WL 1916810, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/remus-v-scottsdale-insurance-co-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack