"NAHH," says Court, "it doesn't work that way."
In Raintree Village Condominium No. 11 Ass'n v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 2013 WL 5304054 (M.D. Fla. September 20, 2013), the policyholder, Raintree, a condominium association, contended "that it was not provided anything related to the subject policies." Raintree Village Condominium No. 11 Ass'n v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 2013 WL 5304054 *6 (M.D. Fla. September 20, 2013). Accepting this contention as true (although the Court in that case pointed out that the condominium association cited to the policy language in its Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations), the Court considered Raintree's legal argument based on this assertion of fact: Florida Statute Section 627.421 (1) requires delivery to the insured, and since Raintree's liability insurance policy assertedly was not delivered to Raintree, then Raintree's liability insurance company should therefore be liable for "all possible claims" under the policy. Raintree Village Condominium No. 11 Ass'n v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 2013 WL 5304054 *6 (M.D. Fla. September 20, 2013).
The Court stated two reasons when it rejected this contention in that case. First, the Court could not locate any Florida case that ever agreed with that contention. Second, said the Court, that contention makes no sense. Raintree Village Condominium No. 11 Ass'n v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 2013 WL 5304054 *6 (M.D. Fla. September 20, 2013).
To have a chance of success in Court, insurance coverage contentions should make sense. Just saying.
Please Read The Disclaimer.