Commercial auto policy’s fire and theft endorsement, per vehicle and per location, interpreted in favor insurance carrier.
This matter focused on the interpretation of a commercial automobile policy. Bolufe Enterprise operated a car dealership under a garage policy that provided certain coverage, including fire and theft, for its collection of vehicles located in Miami. After acquiring a McLaren supercar from a seller in Dallas, Bolufe was in the process of transporting the vehicle back to Miami when it became entangled with a fire, rendering the vehicle a total loss. Bolufe reported a claim under the policy and claimed $200,000 in damages, citing the fire endorsement limit of that amount. In response, Ascendant offered $50,000 to Bolufe, citing a different limit for the vehicle.
In the action for breach of contract that followed, no material facts were in dispute, and cross motions were filed by both parties. The lower court ruled in Bolufe’s favor, determining that the fire and theft endorsement set a policy limit of $200,000 per location. Giving effect to the plain language of the policy, the reviewing court found that the fire and theft endorsement adopted the policy’s physical damage coverage provisions, which stated that the most Ascendant would pay for a loss premised on physical damage was the actual cash value of the vehicle at the time of loss, and ruled in favor of Bolufe. Following a timely appeal, the reviewing court determined that a second endorsement, titled “Limits and Deductibles,” further amended the policy’s’ physical damage provisions to provide a per vehicle damage limit of $50,000. The court found the two endorsements were not in conflict nor was the policy ambiguous, thus, it ruled that the plain language of both endorsements limited coverage to $50,000. The court reversed the final judgment and remanded to the lower court to enter summary judgment in favor of Ascendant.
Legal Update for Florida Coverage & Property Litigation – August 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.