Family Law: December 2007 Archives
Mr. Kattoum so annoyed his wife that she intentionally drove the family Lincoln into the wall of the family car wash business. When the couple had the chutzpah to file an insurance claim, the company declined, relying on a provision in part A of the Policy which read: "We do not provide liability coverage for an insured . . . who intentionally causes property damage." But there was no such language in the casualty coverage provisions in Part D. The Florida Appeals Court rightly held it was error to incorporate an intentional damage exclusion from one subpart of a policy to another. Taisyer Kattoum v. New Hampshire Indemnity Co. (Fla. 2d DCA Case No. 2D05-3526, Opinion Filed Sept. 28, 2007).
