Insurance — Commercial general liability — Duty to defend — Trial court improperly relied on extrinsic evidence in entering summary judgment finding that insurer had no duty to defend action against insured which installed failed fire suppressant system in aircraft hangar — Where insurer claimed that it did not have a duty to defend or indemnify because coverage was barred by policy’s total pollution exclusion, it was error for trial court, in granting summary judgment for insurer, to rely on insurer’s claims specialist’s Material Safety Data Sheet to determine that fire suppressant foam from system was a pollutant and excluded from coverage — Exception to general rule that insurer’s duty to defend is determined by allegations of complaint where claim that there is no duty to defend is based on factual issues that would not normally be alleged in complaint is inapplicable where extrinsic evidence was not uncontroverted or manifestly obvious so as to preclude coverage
44 Fla. L. Weekly D996b
The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney.
opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index