Case Name: FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, Appellant, v. FOREMOST INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1983-01-26
Citations: 433 So. 2d 536
Docket Number: No. 81-306
Parties: FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, Appellant, v. FOREMOST INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
Judges: ANSTEAD, J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 433
Pages: 536–537

Head Matter:
FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, Appellant, v. FOREMOST INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
No. 81-306.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Jan. 26, 1983.
Rehearing Denied July 6, 1983.
Rehearing of July 6,1983,
Opinion Denied Aug. 31,1983.
David F. Crow of Paxton, Crow, Bragg & Austin, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Edward R. Curtis and Richard S. Womble of Fertig & Curtis, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

Opinion:
HERSEY, Judge.
On the basis of Glades Flying Club v. America's Aviation and Marine Insurance Company, 235 So.2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970), the trial court directed a verdict in favor of defendant insurer because the pilot warranty clause contained in the insurance policy at issue had been breached. The parties stipulated to certain facts which demonstrate breach of the pilot clause. Under the Glades Flying Club case, such a breach operates to suspend the insurance as if it had never been in force even though there was no causal connection between noncompliance and the loss or injury. However, subsequent to that decision the legislature enacted Section 627.409(2), Florida Statutes (1981), which provides:
(2) A breach or violation by the insured of any warranty, condition, or provision of any wet marine or transportation insurance policy, contract of insurance, endorsement, or application therefor shall not render void the policy or contract, or constitute a defense to a loss thereon, unless such breach or violation increased the hazard by any means within the control of the insured.
The burden of pleading and proving breach of condition and a resulting in crease of the hazard is on defendant. In the instant case, although not pled, the question of breach was tried by consent. Defendant insurer, however, failed to prove that breach of the pilot clause increased the hazzard. Accordingly, the directed verdict in favor of defendant insurer must be reversed.
REVERSED.
ANSTEAD, J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.