Case ID: so2d_528/html/0131-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "FERGUSON, Judge. \n      DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

L. LURIA & SON, INC., Appellant, v. FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, and The American Insurance Company, a foreign corporation, Appellees.
    No. 87-2444.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    July 19, 1988.
    Kopelowitz, Atlas, Pearlman & Trop and Jan Atlas and Robin Corwin Campbell, Ft. Lauderdale, for appellant.
    Bernard C. Pestcoe and Heidi Roth, Coral Gables, for appellees.
    Before HUBBART, DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.
   FERGUSON, Judge.

The dispositive question is whether a policy of insurance, under any reasonable construction, affords coverage for goods stolen from a common carrier while in transit. On examination of the basic policy, the endorsements, and the exclusions, we agree with the trial court that there are no ambiguities. See Oceanus Mut. Underwriting Assoc., (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Fuentes, 456 So.2d 1230, 1232 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (court shall not extend the coverage of insurance beyond that plainly set forth in the contract), rev. denied, 466 So.2d 217 (Fla.1985). Loss occasioned by theft is excluded by the basic policy. A supplemental policy provides coverage for loss of goods while in transit where the property is carried by armored car, the insured’s own vehicle, registered mail, or by messenger service.

Summary judgment for the insurer is affirmed.

HUBBART, J., concurs.

DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge,

concurring.

The policy in no uncertain terms provides “nor shall this Company be liable for loss by theft.” The transportation floater to which the majority opinion refers limits liability on losses not attributable to theft. Thus, because there is no theft coverage whatsoever in this policy, I agree that the insurer was entitled to a summary judgment.