Landmark American Insurance Company v. Pin-Pon Corporation and Lexington Insurance Company
2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 189
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Pin-Pon insured the Palm Court Hotel under a primary Lexington policy and an excess Landmark policy following hurricane damage from Frances and Jeanne.
- Lexington Endorsement #2 listed Building $8,000,000, Contents $2,000,000, and Business Income $1,382,368, yet the declarations were argued to create blanket versus scheduled coverage.
- Lexington’s Occurrence Limit of Liability formed a per-occurrence cap of $2.5 million, later altered by Endorsement #4 which deleted the sub-limit language, creating ambiguity.
- Pin-Pon sought recovery under both policies; Lexington paid the Frances claim in full and a partial amount for Jeanne, while Landmark paid Frances but nothing for Jeanne pending Lexington’s payment.
- Jury awarded Pin-Pon significant additional damages for building and code upgrades from Frances and for business interruption, with the trial court allocating Lexington’s entire per-occurrence limit to Frances’ BI damages.
- Exhibit 98, a composite cost-claim for code upgrades, was admitted as a business record and used to support code upgrade damages, but its admissibility was later ruled improper, requiring remand for a new trial on code upgrades.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper interpretation of Lexington policy | Lexington is blanket with no BI sublimits; Endorsement #2 values do not cap categories. | Policy is scheduled with sublimits determined by Endorsement #2 values and paragraph 2.c. | Policy unambiguously blanket with $2.5M per occurrence and no BI sublimit; interpretation in insured’s favor. |
| Allocation of primary policy to BI award | All Lexington proceeds may be allocated to BI to maximize excess coverage. | Endorsement 2 values create category-specific limits; allocation to BI is improper. | Lexington provides blanket $2.5M per occurrence; allocation to BI consistent with policy as a whole. |
| Admission of Exhibit 98 as a business record | Exhibit 98 is a business record properly foundational through architect’s testimony. | Exhibit 98 fails to lay foundation for business-record exception; hearsay problem. | Exhibit 98 improperly admitted; remand for new trial on code upgrade damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arias v. Affirmative Ins. Co., 944 So.2d 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (interpret insurance contracts; de novo review standard)
- Swire Pac. Holdings, Inc. v. Zurich Ins. Co., 845 So.2d 161 (Fla.2003) (read policies as a whole; plain meaning controls when unambiguous)
- Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 756 So.2d 29 (Fla.2000) (ambiguous policy interpreted liberally in insured’s favor)
- Emerald Pointe Prop. Owners’ Ass’n v. Commercial Constr. Indus., Inc., 978 So.2d 873 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (four-corners rule; plain meaning controls)
- Dows v. Nike, Inc., 846 So.2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (ambiguity; interpret against insurer)
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. CTC Dev. Corp., 720 So.2d 1076 (Fla.1998) (contract interpretation; ambiguity resolved in insured’s favor)
- Gorman v. Kelly, 658 So.2d 1049 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (extrinsic evidence to clarify ambiguity)
- Cooper v. State, 45 So.3d 490 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (foundation for business records; knowledge/regular business activity)
- Twilegar v. State, 42 So.3d 177 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (foundation for business records admissibility)
- Cayea v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 138 So.3d 1214 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (knowledge and regular business activity required)
- Brooks v. State, 918 So.2d 181 (Fla. 2005) (knowledge and business-record foundations; testimony sufficiency)
- National Car Rental Sys., Inc. v. Holland, 269 So.2d 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972) (business records exception limitations)
- Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So.2d 638 (Fla.1999) (harms of relying on right result for wrong reason)