Case Name: WINTER GARDEN ORNAMENTAL NURSERY, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. L. E. CAPPLEMAN and W. F. Cappleman, Jr., partners d/b/a Cappleman Agency, and Reserve Insurance Company, an Illinois corporation, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1967-07-27
Citations: 201 So. 2d 479
Docket Number: No. 517
Parties: WINTER GARDEN ORNAMENTAL NURSERY, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. L. E. CAPPLEMAN and W. F. Cappleman, Jr., partners d/b/a Cappleman Agency, and Reserve Insurance Company, an Illinois corporation, Appellees.
Judges: WALDEN, C. J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 201
Pages: 479–482

Head Matter:
WINTER GARDEN ORNAMENTAL NURSERY, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. L. E. CAPPLEMAN and W. F. Cappleman, Jr., partners d/b/a Cappleman Agency, and Reserve Insurance Company, an Illinois corporation, Appellees.
No. 517.
District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.
July 27, 1967.
Suggestion for Certification Denied Sept. 11, 1967.
Richard W. Bates, Orlando, for appellant.
Charles T. Wells, of Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, Orlando, for appellee Reserve Ins. Co.

Opinion:
ANDREWS, Judge.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff, Winter Garden Ornamental Nursery, Inc., from a summary final judgment entered in favor of defendant, Reserve Insurance Company.
Fred Borror, a prospective customer of plaintiff, entered the van of plaintiff's truck to select and purchase wholesale merchandise. This was the normal manner in which plaintiff displayed its stock of plants. Borror fell and was injured while leaving the van.
Borror made demand against plaintiff for damages resulting from his fall. Defendant-Reserve, insurer of the truck, declined coverage for the reason that Borror was alighting from the vehicle when injured and that the risk of such injury was within the following policy exclusionary provision:
"PASSENGER HAZARD EXCLUDED
"It is agreed that such insurance as is afforded by the policy for Bodily Injury Liability does not apply to Bodily Injury including death at any time resulting therefrom, sustained by any person while in or upon entering or alighting from the automobile."
Plaintiff settled Borror's claim, then brought this action against Defendant-Reserve for breach of its contract of liability insurance with plaintiff. The Capple-mans, local agents for Reserve, were also joined as parties defendant but are not a party to this appeal. The trial court entered final summary judgment for Defendant-Reserve and plaintiff appealed.
Plaintiff's claim would seem to be precluded by the endorsement, which specifically excludes liability'for injury sustained by any person while alighting from the vehicle. Where, as here, the language is plain and unambiguous, there is no occasion for a court to construe it. Rigel v. National Casualty Company, Fla.1954, 76 So.2d 285.
But plaintiff contends that the provision, when read with the caption "Passenger Hazard Excluded," becomes ambiguous. In essence, plaintiff argues that the use of the more restricted word "passenger" is misleading and casts doubt on the meaning of "any person" in the body of the endorsement and that this ambiguity must be resolved against the insurer.
Plaintiff's contention is refuted by the general rule which, while allowing resort to a caption to explain an ambiguity in the operative part of the clause, does not permit use of a caption to create ambiguity where none exists. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 4 Cir. 1948, 166 F.2d 492; Orchard v. Agricultural Insurance Company of Watertown, N.Y., D.C.Ore.1964, 228 F.Supp. 564. Here the operative language is clear and unambiguous and the above rule applies.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
WALDEN, C. J., concurs.
CROSS, J., dissents, with opinion.