Castillo v. State

26 Citing cases

  1. Southern-Owners Ins. Co. v. MAC Contractors of Fla.

    No. 23-11366 (11th Cir. Apr. 11, 2024)

    Castillo v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 971 So.2d 820, 824 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).

  2. Southern-Owners Ins. Co. v. Galati Yacht Sales, LLC

    653 F. Supp. 3d 1147 (M.D. Fla. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    "[W]hen an insurer relies on an exclusion to deny coverage, it has the burden of demonstrating that the allegations of the complaint are cast solely and entirely within the policy exclusion and are subject to no other reasonable interpretation." Castillo v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 971 So.2d 820, 824 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).

  3. Owners Ins. Co. v. Bobby T., Inc.

    Case No: 8:16-CV-3428-T-27AAS (M.D. Fla. Mar. 27, 2018)

    "When an insurer relies on an exclusion to deny coverage, it has the burden of demonstrating that the allegations of the complaint are cast solely and entirely within the policy exclusion and are subject to no other reasonable interpretation." Castillo v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 971 So. 2d 820, 824 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (quotation omitted). Plaintiffs are not entitled to summary judgment because Bahama Bay's complaint in the underlying action can be reasonably interpreted to allege damage to property other than that on which Bobby T performed work.

  4. Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. A. Building Materials

    820 F. Supp. 2d 1265 (M.D. Fla. 2011)   Cited 4 times

    “[W]hen an insurer relies on an exclusion to deny coverage, it has the burden of demonstrating that the allegations of the [underlying] complaint are cast solely and entirely within the policy exclusion and are subject to no other reasonable interpretation.” Castillo v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 971 So.2d 820, 824 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (quoting Northland Cas. Co. v. HBE Corp., 160 F.Supp.2d 1348, 1359 (M.D.Fla.2001)). Exclusionary clauses are disfavored and are “always strictly construed” in favor of the broadest coverage.

  5. Wash. Nat'l Ins. Corp. v. Ruderman

    117 So. 3d 943 (Fla. 2013)   Cited 122 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "under [Florida's] long-established rules of construction of insurance contracts, the ambiguous policy must be strictly construed against the insurer."

    We are aware that several district courts of appeal in Florida have allowed extrinsic evidence in cases involving construction of insurance contracts. See, e.g., Kiln PLC v. Advantage Gen. Ins. Co., Ltd., 80 So.3d 429, 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (allowing consideration of extrinsic evidence in part because there was a factual dispute as to which party chose the language of the policy); Castillo v. State Farm Florida Ins. Co., 971 So.2d 820, 823 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (allowing consideration of State Farm's internal operating guidelines to assist in defining terms in insurance contract). However, district court decisions such as these and others that have allowed consideration of extrinsic evidence in an attempt to explain, clarify, or resolve an ambiguity in an insurance contract do not alter this Court's established precedent that ambiguous contracts of insurance are to be construed against the insurer as drafter of the policy, as was the insurer in this case.

  6. Acosta v. National Union Fire

    Case No. 1D09-3215 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2010)

    Id. The propriety of considering only the allegations of the complaint has also been recognized in the context of a policy exclusion. See Castillo v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 971 So. 2d 820, 824 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). For example, inCastillo v. State Farm, the court stated, "[W]hen an insurer relies on an exclusion to deny coverage, it has the burden of demonstrating that the allegations of the complaint are cast solely and entirely within the policy exclusion and are subject to no other reasonable interpretation." Id. Thus, although the burden to demonstrate the application of a policy exclusion based on the allegations of a complaint alone may be heavy (depending, of course, on the language of the exclusion), it may be carried.

  7. The Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters Ins. Co. v. KNS Grp.

    No. 21-13628 (11th Cir. Oct. 6, 2022)   Cited 4 times

    Considering the next proposed exclusions, we stress that Cincinnati bears the heavy burden of showing "that the allegations of the complaint are cast solely and entirely within the policy exclusion and are subject to no other reasonable interpretation." Castillo v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 971 So.2d 820, 824 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (emphasis added and quotations omitted). As for exclusions j(5) and j(6), they exclude coverage for "property damage" to:

  8. Hatch v. Geovera Specialty Ins. Co.

    Case No: 6:17-cv-2142-Orl-41DCI (M.D. Fla. Jun. 18, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    "Furthermore, in Florida, when an insurer relies on an exclusion to deny coverage, it has the burden of demonstrating that the allegations of the complaint are cast solely and entirely within the policy exclusion and are subject to no other reasonable interpretation." Castillo v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 971 So. 2d 820, 824 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (quotation omitted). "Once the insured establishes a loss apparently within the terms of an all-risk policy, the burden shifts to the insurer to prove that the loss arose from a cause which is excepted."

  9. Evanston Ins. Co. v. Dimucci Dev. Corp. of Ponce Inlet, Inc.

    Case No. 6:15-cv-486-Orl-37GJK (M.D. Fla. Feb. 6, 2017)

    (See Doc. 108, pp. 17-21.) See Castillo v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 971 So. 2d 820, 824 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). In its SJ Order, the Court failed to hold Plaintiff to this heavy burden.

  10. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. Miami River Port Terminal, LLC

    228 F. Supp. 3d 1313 (S.D. Fla. 2017)   Cited 9 times
    Concluding that an insurer had no duty to indemnify based on the court's prior conclusion that the insurer had no duty defend, "given that the duty to indemnify cannot exist if there is no duty to defend"

    Next, MRPT argues that because Mt. Hawley "seeks to avoid its duty to defend based on a policy exclusion," it "has the burden of demonstrating that the allegations of the complaint are cast solely and entirely within the policy exclusion and are subject to no other reasonable interpretation." Id. at 12 (quoting Castillo v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. , 971 So.2d 820, 824 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) ); see also id. (citing Acosta Inc. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. , 39 So.3d 565, 574 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) ). But this case does not concern a policy exclusion ; under the Policy here, no coverage exists for joint ventures "not shown as a Named Insured in the Declarations."