Cesarini v. American Druggist Ins. Co.
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision.
- Westmoreland v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)
- Dalrymple v. IHNEN POOL SERV & SUPPLY (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)
- Ohio Casualty Insurance v. Continental Casualty Co. (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 2003)
- American Sur. & Cas., Co. v. Lake Jackson Pizza (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)
- Marquis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (Kan. 1998)
- SUNSHINE STATE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Jones (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)
- Allstate Insurance v. Safer (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 2004)
- Meyers v. Mississippi Ins. Guar. Ass'n (Miss. 2003)
- Muzzio v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)
- Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Lodwick (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 2000)
- Taylor v. American Fire & Casualty Co. (Utah Ct. App. 1996)
- Tomlinson v. State Farm (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty v. Toward (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 1990)
- Northern Insurance Co. of New York v. Ekstrom (Colo. 1989)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Richard D. CESARINI, and School Board of Pinellas County, Appellants,
v.
AMERICAN DRUGGIST INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
*452 J. Richard Rahter of Kieffer, Georges & Rahter, St. Petersburg, for appellant Cesarini.
Dennis M. Janssen of C. Wade Yeakle, III, P.A., St. Petersburg, for appellant School Bd. of Pinellas County.
Mark E. Hungate and Jeffrey P. Winkler, Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, P.A., St. Petersburg, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the final summary judgment which determined that there was no general liability insurance coverage for a personal injury from an accident caused by a school bus which struck plaintiff while driven by a school board mechanic en route to the maintenance garage. The parties agree that the policy excluded from coverage "bodily injury ... arising out of the ... maintenance, operation, [or] use" of the bus.
Appellant, plaintiff below, argues that there was a showing that the Board negligently hired and supervised the driver who was unfit to drive and that the Board's negligence in that respect was the independent, originating act in a chain of events culminating in the driver's negligence in striking plaintiff. Appellant argues that the exclusion is ambiguous because it does not address this type of circumstance in which joint acts of negligence (those of the Board and the driver) combined to cause injury. We disagree. The terms of the exclusion, in our view and that of the trial court, clearly applied to injury arising from the use or maintenance of the vehicle. The use to which the vehicle was being put at the time of the injury governs the applicability of the exclusion. See Gargano v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 384 So.2d 220 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Atkins v. Bellefonte Insurance Co., 342 So.2d 837 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
Affirmed.
RYDER, C.J., LEHAN, J., and BOARDMAN, EDWARD F., (Ret.) J., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.