American Bankers Insurance Co. of Florida v. Shockley

Words & Phrases

Duty To Defend: Use of Motor Vehicle

Trial Judge

Robert W. Gettleman

Appellate Judge

Manion

Holding

Policy applied to injuries suffered off the insured farm premises, even though arising from use of a motorized vehicle.

Fact Summary

The complaint alleged Shockley was severely injured after being thrown from (and run over by) a golf cart driven by a St. Charles Farms (“SFC”) employee. Shockley sued SFC and its employee for negligence. In response, SFC’s insurer American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida filed suit in federal court seeking a declaratory judgment that it has no duty to defend or indemnify SFC or its employee in the underlying lawsuit. The district court granted American’s motion for summary judgment. Because the district court erred in interpreting the insurance policy, we reverse and remand.

One supplemental coverage is for motorized vehicles and watercraft. It provides coverage for bodily injury or property damage

               arising out of: ... a “motorized vehicle” which is designed only for use off public roads and                       which is used to service the “insured premises.”

               (However, this coverage does not apply to “bodily injury” or “property damage” which results                    from a “motorized vehicle” while used for recreational purposes away from the “insured                           premises”.)

Exclusion six of the policy clarifies that there is no coverage for bodily injury or property damage arising from use of a motorized vehicle except as provided by the supplemental coverage referenced above.

Back