Heylin v. Gulfstream Property & Casualty Insurance, Co.
Docket: No. 5D13-82
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; September 19, 2014; Florida; State Appellate Court
Michael Heylin appeals a final summary judgment in favor of Gulfstream Property and Casualty Insurance Co., asserting that the trial court incorrectly interpreted a homeowners' insurance policy as not covering personal liability for a negligent supervision claim stemming from an underlying intentional tort. The court references a prior ruling in Premier Insurance Co. v. Adams, where a similar severability provision led to an ambiguous interpretation favoring coverage for the homeowner. Consequently, the appellate court reverses the trial court's judgment and remands for summary judgment in favor of Heylin. Gulfstream initiated a declaratory judgment action while Heylin was pursuing a personal injury claim against Benjamin Mutters, a minor, for battery, including counts against Benjamin's parents for negligent supervision. Gulfstream argued that the policy excluded personal liability coverage due to the intentional nature of the alleged battery. The policy's intentional-act exclusion stipulates that bodily injury or property damage expected or intended by an insured is not covered, regardless of the resulting circumstances. Heylin contends that the policy's ambiguity, stemming from the severability clause—which states that the insurance applies separately to each insured—requires coverage for negligent supervision. The trial court had previously granted Gulfstream summary judgment, asserting the policy did not cover the Mutterses for either claim, referencing Hrynkiw v. Allstate Floridian Insurance Co. without further explanation. The appellate court employs a de novo standard of review for the trial court’s summary judgment, reaffirming that its interpretation of contracts is similarly reviewed de novo. The court distinguishes this case from Hrynkiw, where a joint-obligations clause precluded coverage for all insureds if one was found to be liable. In contrast, the presence of the severability clause in this case creates ambiguity that favors the insureds. Thus, consistent with Adams, the court concludes that the ambiguous terms of the policy mandate coverage for the negligent supervision claim. On remand, the trial court is instructed to grant summary judgment in favor of Heylin regarding Gulfstream's obligations to defend and provide liability coverage for the negligence claim. The appellate court also addresses Gulfstream's argument that the issue was not preserved for appeal due to the absence of a transcript, ruling that the issue remains preserved based on prior proceedings. Gulfstream is not a party to the underlying battery and negligence action. The judgment is reversed in part and remanded.