Rubin v. Florida Insurance Guaranty Ass'n

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rubin v. Florida Insurance Guaranty Ass'n

606 So. 2d 699, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 10375, 1992 WL 261175

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 6, 1992

DocketNo. 91-1958

StatusPublished

This text of 606 So. 2d 699 (Rubin v. Florida Insurance Guaranty Ass'n) 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

Rubin v. Florida Insurance Guaranty Ass'n, 606 So. 2d 699, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 10375, 1992 WL 261175 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

Contrary to the holding below, we conclude that the appellee’s policy designated the defendant in the underlying tort action, who was an officer and managing agent of the named insured, as an additional insured and did not contain an applicable exclusion or exception. It therefore covered and required the carrier to defend the Streeter1 ltype claim in question. See Seward v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 261 F.Supp. 805 (S.D.Fla.1966), aff’d, 392 F.2d 723 (5th Cir.1968); General Aviation Supply Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America, 181 F.Supp. 380 (E.D.Mo.1960), aff’d, 283 F.2d 590 (8th Cir.1960); Zenti v. Home Ins. Co., 262 N.W.2d 588 (Iowa 1978); see generally Stuyvesant Ins. Co. v. Butler, 314 So.2d 567 (Fla.1975).

There is also no merit in FIGA’s fail-back position that the case is moot. Losicco v. Aetna Casualty & Sur. Co., 588 So.2d 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Gibson v. Walker, 380 So.2d 531 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed with directions to enter a judgment on coverage for the appellant and to assess attorney’s fees for services rendered below and on appeal. Section 627.428, Fla.Stat. (1991).

Reversed and remanded.

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

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

Contrary to the holding below, we conclude that the appellee’s policy designated the defendant in the underlying tort action, who was an officer and managing agent of the named insured, as an additional insured and did not contain an applicable exclusion or exception. It therefore covered and required the carrier to defend the Streeter1 ltype claim in question. See Seward v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 261 F.Supp. 805 (S.D.Fla.1966), aff’d, 392 F.2d 723 (5th Cir.1968); General Aviation Supply Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America, 181 F.Supp. 380 (E.D.Mo.1960), aff’d, 283 F.2d 590 (8th Cir.1960); Zenti v. Home Ins. Co., 262 N.W.2d 588 (Iowa 1978); see generally Stuyvesant Ins. Co. v. Butler, 314 So.2d 567 (Fla.1975).

There is also no merit in FIGA’s fail-back position that the case is moot. Losicco v. Aetna Casualty & Sur. Co., 588 So.2d 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Gibson v. Walker, 380 So.2d 531 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed with directions to enter a judgment on coverage for the appellant and to assess attorney’s fees for services rendered below and on appeal. Section 627.428, Fla.Stat. (1991).

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

606 So. 2d 699, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 10375, 1992 WL 261175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rubin-v-florida-insurance-guaranty-assn-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack