In Abraham v. Universal Ins. Co. of N. Am., 2013 WL 4081030 (Fla. 4th DCA August 14, 2013)(STATED NOT FINAL), the appellate court applied what is often called "the tipsy coachman rule" of appellate jurisprudence: Where there is even one ground to affirm the trial court's judgment, even though the trial court entered judgment for the wrong reason, affirm the judgment.
In that case, the carrier contended in pertinent part that the insured came within an exclusion for operating the premises for commercial purposes, and that coverage was excluded anyway because there is no coverage for construction defects and mold damage resulting from them.
The appellate court noted that there was no record evidence of a commercial enterprise being operated by the policyholder. However, the record evidence concerning the excluded construction defects and resulting mold damage, presented different stories:
The insurance company presented undisputed evidence that there was no water leak, and the policy did not cover mold unconnected to a peril covered by the policy. Defects in the construction process, as the expert testified was how the mold occurred, are not covered by the policy. Therefore, the summary judgment was appropriately entered.
Abraham v. Universal Ins. Co. of N. Am., 2013 WL 4081030 *1 (Fla. 4th DCA August 14, 2013). The tipsy coachman rules again.
Please Read The Disclaimer. Copyright © 2013 Dennis J. Wall. No claim to original U.S. Government works.