THE ITNOR V. MARKEL INT’L

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Third District Court » 2008 » THE ITNOR V. MARKEL INT’L

State: Florida

Court: Florida Third District Court

Docket No: 07-1613 & 07-1449

Case Date: 05/21/2008

Preview:Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2008
Opinion filed May 21, 2008. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ Nos. 3D07-1449; 3D07-1613 Lower Tribunal No. 06-532 ________________

The Itnor Corporation, et al.,
Appellants, vs.

Markel International Insurance Company, Ltd.,
Appellee.

Appeals from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Mark H. Jones, Judge. Law Offices of Manuel Garcia and Ronald E. Solomon; Richard A. Sherman; and The Ferraro Law Firm and W. Sam Holland, for appellants. Law Offices of Clinton D. Flagg and Carol A. Fenello, for appellee. Before GERSTEN, C.J., and LAGOA, J., and DAMOORGIAN, Associate Judge. GERSTEN, C.J. The Itnor Corporation ("Itnor") and Shirley Murphy ("Murphy") appeal a final summary judgment in favor of Markel International Insurance Company, Ltd. ("Markel"). We affirm.

While working at Itnor's trailer park, Murphy was injured in a propane gas explosion. Itnor, meanwhile, had a commercial liability policy with Markel. The policy excluded: (a) bodily injury "arising out of operations performed for you by independent contractors" ("independent contractor exclusion"); and (b) bodily injury "arising out of actions . . . initiated or caused to be brought about by any insured covered by the policy against any other insured covered by this policy" ("cross liability exclusion"). Markel sent a reservation of rights letter and filed a declaratory action to determine coverage for Murphy's lawsuit. motions for summary judgment. Based on the pleadings, motions, affidavits, and depositions, the trial court determined that Murphy was an independent contractor injured in the course and scope of her employment. Thus, the trial court determined Murphy was barred from coverage under the policy's independent contractor and cross liability exclusions. Itnor and Murphy contend that neither the independent contractor nor the cross liability exclusions are applicable for two reasons: (l) the independent Ultimately, the parties filed cross

contractor exclusion is ambiguous and should be interpreted against Markel; and (2) the cross liability exclusion does not apply because Murphy is not an insured

2

manager. Markel, on the other hand, asserts that both exclusions are unambiguous and applicable. Upon review of the record, we agree with the trial court that no genuine issue of material fact exists concerning Murphy's status as an independent contractor injured in the course and scope of her employment. Therefore, we agree with Markel. Courts must construe insurance contracts in accordance with their plain meaning. Taurus Holdings, Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 913 So. 2d 528, 532 (Fla. 2005). Moreover, an insurance contract must be read as a whole.

Download THE ITNOR V. MARKEL INT’L.pdf