18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 73a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1801SNUG
Insurance — Automobile — Coverage — Exclusions — Business purposes — Where insured’s vehicle was stolen while insured was delivering newspapers and later wrecked by thief, coverage is precluded by policy exclusion for damage arising out of use of vehicle to carry persons or property for compensation, including delivery of newspapers
JAMES EDWARD SNUGGS, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff. County Court, 1st Judicial Circuit in and for Escambia County. Case No. 2009 CC 000333, Division V. July 4, 2010. Counsel: Charles Beall, for Plaintiff. William Anderson, Daniell, Upton, Perry & Morris, P.C., Daphne, Alabama, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
At a hearing in open court on June 17, 2010, the parties appeared through counsel. At issue were the motions for summary judgment filed by both parties. The underlying facts are not in dispute. Plaintiff purchased an automobile insurance policy from defendant. The plaintiff did not inform defendant that he was using his vehicle to deliver newspapers for the Pensacola News-Journal. Defendant’s insurance policy was therefore issued and charged to cover only “personal” use.
While delivering newspapers during the early morning hours on November 1, 2008, the plaintiff’s car was stolen and the thief later wrecked the car. Defendant insurance company denied coverage. The parties agree on the amount of the damages, but disagree on whether there is coverage. Plaintiff argues that the car was wrecked not “while” working, but during the course of a criminal act by the thief. The defendant argues that “but for” the theft, which occurred “while” the plaintiff was working, the damage would never have happened. Both parties rely on the language of the policy.
The policy has a section named “Exclusions — read the following exclusions carefully. If an exclusion applies, coverage will not be afforded under this Part 1.” Coverage under this Part 1, including our duty to defend, will not apply to any insured person for: 1. Bodily injury or property damage arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of any vehicle or trailer while being used to carry persons or property for compensation or a fee, including, but not limited to, pickup or delivery of magazines, newspapers, food or any other products.” Although counsel for plaintiff was both extraordinarily articulate and creative in both the verbal and written argument for his client, the plain meaning of the provision must be given effect and it is clear that this damage was incurred “. . . arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of. . .” (Emphasis added) the car for business purposes and therefore it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that defendant/counter-plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is granted and plaintiff/counter-defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied. The court reserves jurisdiction of the issue of attorney’s fees and costs.
