An explosion at PCR's chemical plant killed one employee and seriously injured another. The injured employee and the decedent's wife sued PCR in Florida court, and the Florida Supreme Court later held in the workers' compensation context that employer intent could be shown either by deliberate intent to injure or by conduct substantially certain to cause injury or death. Before the explosion, Travelers had issued PCR a policy providing employers' liability coverage for bodily injury by accident, but excluding "bodily injury intentionally caused or aggravated" by PCR. Travelers argued that the exclusion barred coverage for the employee suits, while PCR argued the exclusion was ambiguous and should be read to require specific intent to injure.
Issue
Whether, under Florida insurance law, the policy exclusion for "bodily injury intentionally caused or aggravated" by the insured requires specific intent to injure, or instead also excludes injuries deemed intentional under a substantial-certainty standard. Relatedly, whether PCR is entitled to liability coverage under that policy language as interpreted under Florida law.
Rule
Florida insurance policies are construed according to their plain language, but if relevant policy language is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, one providing coverage and the other limiting coverage, the policy is ambiguous. Ambiguous policy language must be interpreted liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the drafter, and exclusionary clauses are construed even more strictly against the insurer than coverage clauses.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
Maple Forge Fabrication, a metalworks company in Tampa, bought an employers' liability policy from Gulf Meridian Casualty. The policy covers "bodily injury by accident" but excludes "bodily injury intentionally caused or aggravated by" Maple Forge. After a worker is burned, the worker alleges the company knowingly used a process that made serious injury substantially certain, while the company insists no manager specifically meant to hurt anyone.
Applying the majority opinion's approach under Florida law, what is the strongest argument for coverage?
Explanation. Florida law, as described by the majority, treats policy language as ambiguous when it is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, one favoring coverage and one limiting it. Ambiguous provisions are construed in favor of the insured, and exclusionary clauses are construed even more strictly against the insurer. The majority regarded similar exclusionary language as possibly requiring specific intent, so the insured's best argument is that the exclusion does not clearly reach conduct alleged to be merely substantially certain to cause harm. (Derived from Travelers Indemnity Co. v. PCR, Inc. (n.d.).)