Redland Insurance Co. v. CEM Site Constructors, Inc.
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 7294
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- CEM applied for and obtained a December 2008 commercial auto policy from Redland, effective December 10, 2008.
- The application included a Commercial Auto Drivers List with no definition of 'driver' and no indication who should be listed; McLeod III was not listed.
- On August 3, 2009, McLeod III was involved in an accident while driving a personal vehicle on company business, causing the death of John P. Jorge.
- Jorge’s personal representative sued CEM; Redland denied liability coverage due to McLeod III’s omission from the drivers list.
- In February 2010, Redland filed a two-count declaratory action seeking policy rescission under 627.409(1) and coverage exclusion for McLeod III.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in Redland’s favor; the appeal reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ambiguity of 'driver' definition | Redland argues ambiguity bars misrepresentation as a matter of law. | CEM argues ambiguity exists and factual issues remain. | Ambiguity involves disputed facts; summary judgment improper. |
| McLeod III's employee status at application time | McLeod III was an employee driving for CEM. | McLeod III was not an employee when the application was completed. | Disputed facts; summary judgment improper; remand. |
| Coverage for insured vs. household vehicle ownership | McLeod III should be covered under the insured definition. | McLeod III is excluded as an employee driving a vehicle owned by a household member. | Disputed facts; remand necessary. |
| Impact of Redland's Non-Specified Operators form | Non-Specified Operators form may affect understanding of 'driver'. | Form not used in application; no effect. | Fact questions remain; summary judgment improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Great Oaks Cas. Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 530 So.2d 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (ambiguous driver term can affect misrepresentation analysis)
- Winston Park, Ltd. v. City of Coconut Creek, 872 So.2d 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (summary judgment standards; nonmoving party may prevail at trial)
- Besco USA Int’l Corp. v. Home Sav. of Am. FSB, 675 So.2d 687 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (summary judgment burdens; irrefutable proof required)
- Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126 (Fla. 2000) (de novo review of summary judgment; standard clarified)