Skip to main content

Marinemax, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA

11th CircuitOctober 6, 2015No. 14-13492Cited 1 time

Case Details

Judge(s)
Tjoflat, Hull, Hall
Status
Unpublished
Procedural Posture
Appeal to 11th Circuit Court of Appeals regarding insurance coverage determination
Circuit
11th Circuit

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The 11th Circuit addressed insurance coverage disputes between Marinemax and National Union Fire Insurance regarding policy interpretation and obligations related to marine/recreational equipment business losses.

Similar Rulings

Griffith Foods International Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA
Ill.Jan 2026
Unresolvable
Moreno
E.D. Tex.Oct 2022
Defendant Win
Ryan, LLC v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA
Tex. App.—5th Dist.Jul 2022
Unresolvable
Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. National Union Fire Insurance
NYMay 2013
Mixed Result
Wiest
Unknown CourtDec 1914

<p>Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. J. Hugo Grimm} Judge.</p> <p>(1) Where the policy provides for the payment of an indemnity for the loss of one entire hand or foot, or the loss of two entire hands or feet, it is not necessary, in order to recover thereunder, that there should be an actual physical severance of the member from the body. Any loss which renders it practically useless is sufficient. 1 Cyc. p. 272, and cases cited; 5 Words & Phrases, p. 4236; Sisson v. Sup. Ct. of Honor, 104 Mo. App. 60; Sheanon v. Pac. Mut. Ins. Co., 77 Wis. 618; Lord v. Am. Mut. Acc. Assn., 89 Wis. 19; Sneak v. Trav. Ins. Co., 88 Hun 94; Gahagan v. Morrisey, 3 Lack. Leg. N. 168;' Garcelon v. Com. Trav. Assn., 184 Mass. 8; Fuller v. Locomotive Eng. Mut. Life & Acc. Ins. Assn., 122 Mich. 548. (2) The rule is well settled by an unbroken line of decisions in Missouri, that where the provisions of a policy are capable of two interpretations, that meaning must be applied which is the most favorable to the assured, even though it was intended otherwise by the insurer. Mathews v. Modern Woodman, 236 Mo. 326; Stix v. Indemnity Co., 175 Mo. App. 171; Dezell v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 176 Mo. 253, 265; Head v. Ins. Co., 241 Mo. 403; Renshaw v. Ins. Co., 103 Mo. 597; Brown v. Assurance Co., 45 Mo. 221; Mining Co. v. Casualty Co., 162 Mo. App. 191; Renn v. Supreme Lodge, 83 Mo. App. 442, 447; Cunningham v. Union C. &. S. Co., 82 Mo. App. 614; Norman v. Ins. Co., 74 Mo. App. 456; Burnett v. Ins. Co., 68 Mo. App. 343; Hoffman v. Ins. Co., 56 Mo. App. 301; Ethington v. Ins. Co., 55 Mo. App. 129; Hale v. Ins. Co., 46 Mo. App. 508; La Force v. Ins. Co., 43 Mo. App. 530.</p> <p>It is the duty of courts to construe contracts and to ascertain their meaning from all of the provisions thereof and not from single words or phrases or sentences, but, when there is no ambiguity or uncertainty in the terms used, there is no room for the application of the technical rules of construction. Matth

Mixed Result

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.