Laboss Transportation Services, Inc. v. Global Liberty Insurance Co., 188 F. Supp. 3d 1320

Laboss Transportation (insured) purchased a commercial auto policy from Global Liberty effective Mar. 12, 2014; application initially listed driver Errol Ward but his name was crossed out before issuance.
Ward’s license was reinstated on Mar. 13, 2014; he resumed driving for Laboss though not yet added to Global’s listed drivers until after the accident.
On Mar. 17, 2014 Ward accelerated from a stop; passenger William Wilson’s wheelchair flipped backward causing injury. Ward had used the Q’Straint system to secure the wheelchair.
Global initially denied coverage, asserting (inter alia) no "accident," a professional-services exclusion, and material misrepresentation in the application; Global later added Ward to the policy on Mar. 18 and renewed the policy for 2015.
Laboss sued for a declaratory judgment; parties agreed the dispute presented pure legal questions and the facts were largely undisputed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ward was an "insured" permissive driver	Ward drove with Laboss’s permission and Policy covers anyone using a covered auto with permission	Coverage limited to listed/approved drivers; Ward was not listed at time of accident	Court: Policy unambiguously covers permissive drivers; Ward was an insured despite not being listed
Whether the wheelchair incident was an "accident" under the Policy	The injury flowed from use of the covered auto and thus qualifies as an accident	No "automobile accident" occurred; Ward said "no accident"	Court: Term "accident" construed for insured; injury flowed from use of vehicle and is covered
Whether securing the wheelchair was a "professional services" exclusion	Securing wheelchairs is ordinary/manual non‑professional work	Ward had training and compliance with licensing; argues exclusion applies	Court: Securing the wheelchair did not require high level of specialized intellectual training; exclusion does not apply
Whether Laboss’s omission of Ward was a material misrepresentation or waived	Omission immaterial because Ward was a permissive driver; Global waived rescission by accepting premiums, later listing Ward, and renewing policy	Omission was material and Global would not have issued policy with Ward listed initially	Court: Omission was not material; alternatively Global waived right to rescind by its conduct

Taurus Holdings, Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 913 So.2d 528 (Fla. 2005) (insurance contracts construed by plain meaning; ambiguities against insurer)
Garcia v. Fed. Ins. Co., 969 So.2d 288 (Fla. 2007) (ambiguities in insurance policies interpreted for insured)
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. CTC Dev. Corp., 720 So.2d 1072 (Fla. 1998) (term "accident" susceptible to varying interpretations; construed for insured)
Heritage Mut. Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 657 So.2d 925 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (coverage exists where injury "flows from" use of vehicle)
Lindheimer v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 643 So.2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (focus on particular act to determine whether it is a professional service)
Gulf Ins. Co. v. Gold Cross Ambulance Serv. Co., 327 F. Supp. 149 (W.D. Okla.) (distinguishing manual ambulance services from professional services)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard requires no genuine dispute of material fact)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment requires more than mere factual dispute to defeat motion)