From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kohler v. Proprietors Ins. Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Mar 20, 1981
394 So. 2d 463 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

Opinion

No. 80-542.

February 10, 1981. Rehearing Denied March 20, 1981.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Harold Featherstone, J.

Manners, Amoon, Whatley Tucker and Sidney S. Margrey, Miami, for appellants.

Kimbrell, Hamann, Jennings, Womack, Carlson Kniskern and R. Owen Ricker, Jr., Miami, for appellee.

Edna L. Caruso, West Palm Beach, McClure Gay, Fort Lauderdale, for Leonard A. Stiller and Bonnie Stiller as amicus curiae.

Before HUBBART, C.J., and DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.


We affirm the summary final judgment in favor of Proprietors Insurance Company, issuers of an aircraft hull and liability policy. The policy, under which Kohler and Poteet, co-owners of the aircraft, claimed a loss when the aircraft was taken by one Stiller, excluded from coverage any operation of the aircraft "for which a charge is made." It is undisputed that Kohler and Poteet required Stiller to make an hourly payment of $125.00 for use of the plane. The agreed-upon payment was a prerequisite to the use of the plane, not a gratuitous reimbursement of flight expenses, compare Pacific Indemnity Company v. Acel Delivery Services, Inc., 485 F.2d 1169 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 921, 94 S.Ct. 1422, 39 L.Ed.2d 476 (1979), with Houston Fire Casualty Insurance Co. v. Ivens, 338 F.2d 452 (5th Cir. 1964), and Fidelity Casualty Co. of New York v. Marion L. Crist Associates, Inc., 248 Ark. 1010, 455 S.W.2d 904 (1970), and, therefore, a charge within the language of the policy. That the required charge was to be paid to a third-party charitable organization does not affect the result. See Restatement of Contracts § 75(d)(2) (1932); Guaclides v. Kruse, 67 N.J. Super. 348, 170 A.2d 488 (1961).

Stiller went south with the plane: according to Kohler and Poteet, figuratively, see H. Wentworth and S. Flaxner, Dictionary of American Slang (2d Supp.Ed. 1975), p. 505; according to Stiller, literally (the plane was seized in Barranquilla by Colombian authorities).

In light of this disposition, we find it unnecessary to address whether the loss claimed was otherwise excluded from coverage.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Kohler v. Proprietors Ins. Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Mar 20, 1981
394 So. 2d 463 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)
Case details for

Kohler v. Proprietors Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES A. KOHLER AND KENNETH POTEET, APPELLANTS, v. PROPRIETORS INSURANCE…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Mar 20, 1981

Citations

394 So. 2d 463 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

Citing Cases

Monarch Ins. Co. of Ohio v. Siegel, (N.D.Ind. 1986)

Courts interpreting insurance contracts containing similar language about "charges" for operation of an…

American Eagle Ins. Co. v. Rutland Area Flyers

However, American Eagle contends that there is no factual dispute as to the fact that the $90.00 charge is…