 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Travelers Indemnity Co. v. PCR Incorporated12/9/2004
ting Cloud v. Shelby Mut. Ins. Co., 248 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971), and Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Helton, 298 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)). The court, however, was unsure whether our decision in Turner affected this line of cases. The court noted that if Cloud and Helton controlled, "Travelers could remain liable for what might be interpreted [under Turner] as PCR's 'intentional' torts if the torts were committed without specific intent to cause injury to the employees." Id. at 1194. Because " he law of Florida on point seem debatable," the court certified the following questions:
1. Does Florida insurance law require a reading of specific intent into an insurance clause excepting from liability coverage " odily injury intentionally caused or aggravated" by the insured?
2. Is PCR in this case entitled to liability coverage based on the language of this policy agreement, read in the light of Florida's law of interpreting insurance policies?
Id.
II. DISCUSSION
This case raises two separate issues. The first issue is one of contract interpretation. Does the insurance policy, properly interpreted, extend coverage to the claims brought against PCR in the underlying tort suits. Specifically, does an employer's liability insurance policy, which provides coverage for "bodily injury by accident" and excludes from coverage "injure intentionally caused" by the insured, extend coverage to a claim brought under Turner's objectively-substantially-certain standard, where the injured employee does not allege that the employer actually intended to cause injury. We answer this question in the affirmative. The second issue is one of public policy. Does public policy prohibit an employer from insuring against the risk of liability arising under Turner's objectively-substantially-certain standard. We answer this question in the negative. We will address each of these issues below.
A. Interpreting the Policy
We must begin by looking to the language of the policy. If the language used in an insurance policy is plain and unambiguous, a court must interpret the policy in accordance with the plain meaning of the language used so as to give effect to the policy as it was written. See Swire Pac. Holdings, Inc. v. Zurich Ins. Co., 845 So. 2d 161, 165 (Fla. 2003); Siegle v. Progressive Consumers Ins. Co., 819 So. 2d 732, 735 (Fla. 2002). Policy language is considered to be ambiguous, however, if the language "is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, one providing coverage and the other limiting coverage." Swire Pac. Holdings, 845 So. 2d at 165 (quoting Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 756 So. 2d 29, 34 (Fla. 2000) (brackets omitted)). When language in an insurance policy is ambiguous, a court will resolve the ambiguity in favor of the insured by adopting the reasonable interpretation of the policy's language that provides coverage as opposed to the reasonable interpretation that would limit coverage. Swire Pac. Holdings, 845 So. 2d at 165; Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 756 So. 2d at 34.
1. The Coverage Clause
The parties contest the interpretation of two separate clauses of the policy: the coverage clause and the injury-intentionally-caused exclusionary clause. We begin by analyzing the coverage clause. The policy's coverage clause provides that the policy, under which Travelers agrees to "pay all sums legally must pay as damages because of bodily injury to [PCR's] employees," applies only to "bodily injury by accident . . . aris out of and in the course of the injured employee's employment by ." The question is whether a claim brought against PCR by an injured employee under Turner's objectively-substantially-
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Florida Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|