5D09-1314 Dickson v. Economy Premier

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Fifth District Court » 2010 » 5D09-1314 Dickson v. Economy Premier

State: Florida

Court: Florida Fifth District Court

Docket No: 5D09-1314

Case Date: 05/10/2010

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2010

LINDA L. DICKSON, Appellant, v. ECONOMY PREMIER ASSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed May 14, 2010 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Seminole County, Clayton D. Simmons, Judge. D. Paul McCaskill of Timothy H. David, P.A., The David Law Group, P.A., Maitland, for Appellant. Michael M. Bell and Esteban F. Scornik, of Bell, Roper & Kohlmyer, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee. LAWSON, J. Linda Dickson appeals a final summary judgment in favor of her former insurer, Economy Premier Assurance Company ("Economy"), which declared that Economy had no duty to defend Dickson or provide coverage under the general personal liability provisions of the insurance policy that it had issued to Dickson. Dickson owned a Ford Explorer, which was also insured under a motor vehicle liability and property damage section in the same policy. After she disposed of the Explorer and her policy had expired, a subsequent owner of the vehicle was seriously injured when the Explorer's CASE NO. 5D09-1314

tire tread separated and caused it to roll over. The injured party sued Dickson for failing to inspect, cure and warn of the defect while she owned the Explorer. Economy

defended Dickson under a reservation of rights and filed the underlying declaratory judgment action, asserting that its policy did not provide coverage because the accident did not occur within the policy period.1 The trial court agreed and granted Economy's motion for summary judgment. Reviewing the matter de novo,2 we find that the policy did provide coverage, and reverse. The scope of insurance coverage is defined by the policy language, which is interpreted "in light of the skill and experience of ordinary people, and given [its] everyday meaning." Campbell, 998 So. 2d at 1153 (quoting Thomas v. Prudential Prop. & Cas., 673 So. 2d 141, 142 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)). Clear and unambiguous provisions, whether basic policy provisions or exclusions, should be enforced according to their terms. Id. Ambiguous provisions, or those susceptible to two reasonable

interpretations -- one providing coverage, the other limiting coverage -- should be construed liberally in favor of coverage to the insured and strictly against the insurer. Id. Likewise, provisions limiting or excluding coverage are construed liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer. Id. Finally, courts should not construe

insurance policy provisions in isolation, but instead in light of the policy as a whole,

The injured party eventually dismissed Dickson, with prejudice, from his personal injury lawsuit, without any payment or other settlement from Dickson. The only real controversy remaining is Dickson's entitlement to attorney's fees, under section 627.428, Florida Statutes, for defending Economy's declaratory judgment suit. See, e.g., State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 998 So. 2d 1151, 1153 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).
2

1

2

giving every provision its full meaning and operative effect.

Download 5D09-1314 Dickson v. Economy Premier.pdf