From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Grange Mutual Casualty Co. v. Thomas

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Oct 9, 1974
301 So. 2d 158 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974)

Summary

In Grange Mutual Cas. Co. v. Thomas, 301 So.2d 158 (Fla.App. 1974), an insurance company attempted to persuade the court that an "expected" injury means an injury which "naturally and foreseeably flow[s] * * * from a wilful act."

Summary of this case from State Auto Mut. Ins. Co. v. McIntyre

Opinion

No. 74-75.

October 9, 1974.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Sarasota County, Roy E. Dean, J.

G. Hunter Gibbons, Dart, Dickinson, O'Riorden, Gibbons Quale, Sarasota, for appellant.

Daryl J. Brown, Rosin, Abel Band, Sarasota, for appellee/Thomas.

Fletcher Brown, Arcadia, for appellee/McDowell.


Appellee Thomas, a non-participant observer of a family quarrel between appellee McDowell and others, was shot by McDowell who, it may be said, certainly didn't intend to injure Thomas even if it also be said he intended to shoot another.

Appellant insurance company, McDowell's homeowners liability carrier, denied coverage under the exclusionary provision of the policy relating to bodily injury ". . . which is either expected or intended . . ." on the part of the insured. (Italics ours.) In a severed trial the court below ruled there was coverage and entered judgment against the appellant insurance company to the extent thereof. We affirm.

Appellant concedes that the facts herein would clearly militate against it under the settled cases which hold that such facts are not within an exclusion relating to "intentional" injury caused by the insured. It urges, however, that the exclusionary language in the policy before us relates also to an injury which should be "expected" by the insured, as distinguished from "intended" by him, and thus excludes those injuries which naturally and foreseeably flow (i.e., are "expected") from a wilful act intended albeit for a different end. We reject this contention. We see no difference in substance between the language of the exclusionary provision here and that in the policies limiting the exclusion simply to "intentional" injuries. The reasons for the judicial rejection of the "natural and foreseeable consequence" theory in the latter cases are no less valid in this one.

See, e.g., Cloud v. Shelby Mutual Ins. Co. of Shelby, Ohio (Fla.App.3d 1971), 248 So.2d 217, and Phoenix Insurance Company v. Helton (Fla.App.1st, 1974), 298 So.2d 177 and cases cited therein.

Id.

Additionally, if we were to give the exclusion before us the meaning argued by appellant, then, by a parity of reasoning, we would have to exclude any injury from an unintentional tort which a given jury might categorize as being "expected" depending upon the degree of likelihood thereof under the facts and circumstances of the case. Conceivably, indeed, this might include an injury resulting from simple negligence and, under Florida law, could well include an injury resulting from gross negligence. We're certain appellant doesn't suggest this.

To illustrate, an act or omission is gross negligence in Florida if a reasonably prudent man would know it would probably and most likely result in injury to another. See, e.g., Carraway v. Revell (Fla. 1959), 116 So.2d 16. Also, cf. Glaab v. Caudill (Fla. App.2d 1970), 236 So.2d 180.

In sum, therefore, as we perceive the law to be in these cases, unless the wrongful act complained of is intentionally directed specifically toward the person injured by such act the injury, as to that victim, is an accident or "occurrence" for which an insured tortfeasor may become legally answerable in damages as contemplated by the coverage provision of his homeowners liability policy.

In view whereof, the judgment appealed from should be, and it is hereby, affirmed.

HOBSON and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Grange Mutual Casualty Co. v. Thomas

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Oct 9, 1974
301 So. 2d 158 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974)

In Grange Mutual Cas. Co. v. Thomas, 301 So.2d 158 (Fla.App. 1974), an insurance company attempted to persuade the court that an "expected" injury means an injury which "naturally and foreseeably flow[s] * * * from a wilful act."

Summary of this case from State Auto Mut. Ins. Co. v. McIntyre

In Grange Mutual Cas. Co. v. Thomas, 301 So.2d 158 (Fla.App. 1974), an insurance company attempted to persuade the court that an "expected" injury means an injury which "naturally and foreseeably flow[s] * * * from a wilful act."

Summary of this case from Continental Western Insurance v. Toal

In Grange Mutual Casualty Co. v. Thomas, 301 So.2d 158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974), the court considered whether the "expected" injury exclusionary language excludes injuries which naturally and foreseeably flow from a willful act.

Summary of this case from Farrer v. U.S. Fidelity Guaranty

In Grange Mutual Casualty Co. v. Thomas, 301 So.2d 158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974), the court considered whether the "expected" injury exclusionary language excludes injuries which naturally and foreseeably flow from a willful act.

Summary of this case from FARRER v. U.S. GUAR, 4D01-228

declining to differentiate "expected" from "intended" because to do so would exclude coverage for gross negligence

Summary of this case from Armstrong World Industries, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

In Grange, the court reasoned that differentiating between the legal consequences of the two terms would be inconsistent with a layman's reasonable expectations.

Summary of this case from United Services Auto. Ass'n v. Elitzky

In Grange Mutual Casualty Co. v. Thomas, 301 So.2d 158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974), McDowell intended to shoot one person, but accidently (unintentionally) shot Thomas, a bystander.

Summary of this case from Clemmons v. American States Ins. Co.
Case details for

Grange Mutual Casualty Co. v. Thomas

Case Details

Full title:GRANGE MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, APPELLANT, v. SAMUEL R. THOMAS AND BYRON…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Oct 9, 1974

Citations

301 So. 2d 158 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974)

Citing Cases

Grissom v. Commercial Union Ins. Co.

The Florida courts in a line of cases have consistently held that insurance policies covering liability for…

Swartz v. McNabb

The Florida courts in a line of cases have consistently held that insurance policies covering liability for…