Narrative Opinion Summary
In a case involving The Cincinnati Insurance Company and Franck’s Lab, Inc., the court granted summary judgment in favor of Cincinnati, finding that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Franck’s and its employee, Anthony J. Campbell, in an underlying lawsuit. The lawsuit stemmed from the death of twenty-one polo horses after they were injected with a miscompounded nutritional supplement by Franck’s, resulting in a claim for $4,076,000 in damages. Cincinnati’s insurance policies included exclusions for 'products and professional services' and 'products completed operations hazard,' which the court found applicable, thus negating the duty to defend or indemnify. The court also addressed the definition of 'pharmacist' under Florida law and the interpretation of 'professional health care services,' concluding that compounding activities fall within these definitions. Furthermore, the court found no ambiguity in the insurance contract terms, ruling that a mutual mistake had led to the correction of the policy to exclude certain coverages. Consequently, the court denied the defendants' counterclaims for breach of contract and directed the entry of judgment in favor of Cincinnati, closing the case.
Legal Issues Addressed
Definition and Scope of 'Pharmacist' under Florida Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed that the definition of 'pharmacist' under Florida law includes compounding, supporting Cincinnati's policy exclusion defense.
Reasoning: Florida law, specifically the Florida Pharmacy Act, defines 'pharmacist' as anyone licensed to practice pharmacy and includes 'compounding' in the practice of pharmacy.
Duty to Defend and Indemnify under Insurance Policysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that The Cincinnati Insurance Company has no duty to defend or indemnify Franck’s Lab, Inc. and its employee in the underlying state lawsuit due to policy exclusions.
Reasoning: The court has granted summary judgment in favor of The Cincinnati Insurance Company, determining that it has no duty to defend or indemnify Franck’s Lab, Inc. and its employee, Anthony J. Campbell, in an underlying state lawsuit.
Insurance Policy Exclusions: Products and Professional Servicessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court concluded that exclusions related to 'products and professional services' applied, thereby negating Cincinnati's obligation to defend or indemnify.
Reasoning: Cincinnati, which insured Franck’s and Campbell under Commercial General Liability and Umbrella Policies, refused to defend them, citing exclusions related to 'products and professional services' and 'products completed operations hazard.'
Interpretation of 'Professional Health Care Services' Exclusionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The term 'professional health care services' was found unambiguous and applicable to Franck’s and Campbell's actions, including the compounding of drugs.
Reasoning: The Court finds the terms unambiguous and applicable to the services provided by Franck’s and Campbell.
Novation and Mutual Mistake in Insurance Contractssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court held that a mutual mistake occurred when the insurance policy was modified, thus supporting Cincinnati's position on the exclusion's validity.
Reasoning: This was recognized as a mutual mistake, which both Cincinnati and Franck's (via their insurance agent) agreed to amend.