Kurchner v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

Citation. 858 So.2d 1220 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 2003)

Powered by

Law Students: Don’t know your Bloomberg Law login? Register here

Citation858 So.2d 1220 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 2003)

Brief Fact Summary.

Kurchner claimed that the destruction of his frozen sperm constituted bodily injury and sued State Farm & Casualty Co. to cover his bodily injury claims.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

Cells removed from the body are not sufficient to satisfy bodily injury insurance claims.

Points of Law - Legal Principles in this Case for Law Students.

The policy terms should be given their plain and unambiguous meaning as understood by the man-on-the-street.

View Full Point of Law

Kurchner was undergoing chemotherapy treatment when him and his wife decided to freeze his sperm with South Florida Institute for Reproductive Medicine (SFIRM). Kurchner sued SFIRM after his sperm was destroyed due to a failure in SFIRM’s cooling system. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (State Farm) denied any coverage for Kurchner’s claims and the trial court granted judgment in favor of State Farm. Kurchner appealed.

Issue.

Whether cells removed from the body are sufficient to satisfy bodily injury insurance claims?

Held.

No. The sperm ceased being part of the body when it was released from Kurchner’s person. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Discussion.

Cells removed from the body constitute personal property and therefore cannot satisfy bodily injury claims.