Court Opinion

ID: 9447970
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 23:19:00.974725+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:14.889802
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing.
PER CURIAM.
Appellants complain in their petition for rehearing that the opinion does not deal with their Point No. II, which is that the insurance company is estopped to deny coverage under the terms of its policy.
Appellants argue, first, that, by virtue of Form IN-6 of the Florida Power & Light Company which appellants had filled out by the insurance company, the insurance company asserted that appellants were covered for the risks in question when it marked “X” under “Yes” to the inquiry:
“Policy includes Coverage for: Yes No * * * -X-
“Liability assumed in construction agreements and other types of contracts or agreements in effect in connection with the insured operations. For Florida Power & Light Company X ”
That representation is not inconsistent with our interpretation of the insurance agreement. Moreover, the representations in Form IN-6 ran from the insurance company to the Florida Power & Light Company, rather than to the appellants.
Still further, estoppel is not applicable to this case. Appellants rely on the case of Hully v. Aluminum Company of America, D.C.S.D.Iowa, 1956, 143 F.Supp. 508, 513, which states in part: “Estoppel does not operate to create a new insurance contract, but simply to deny legal effect to a provision of the policy contract inserted for the benefit of the insurer.” In this case, the attempt is to create a new policy, that is, a coverage for something that is not covered in the policy. In the Hully case, the agent “mistakenly represented [that a *904certain hazard], was covered by another policy clause insuring against unknown hazards.” That is not the case here. Ap-pellee’s agent, Olinto, testified: “Specifically, did you tell them what contractual liability coverage included, sir? A. No, I did not.” Appellant Harrison testified that he had no specific conversation with appellee’s agent about this policy or this particular clause.
The district court found: “No misrepresentations, either in conflict or at variance with the written terms of the policy, were made to the insured by agents of the defendant regarding the nature or extent of the coverage provided by said policy.”
Appellants also claim that coverage of the type claimed was required by Florida Power & Light Company. Assuming that to be material, there is no proof that Florida Power & Light Company did require such coverage.
The petition for rehearing is
Denied.