The operator of a personal watercraft ("jet ski") towed another man on an inflatable tube, which collided with a parked boat with resulting injury to the towee. The injured man and his wife brought a negligence lawsuit against the operator of the craft, who claimed coverage and defense under his homeowners policy. The insurer sought a declaratory judgment to the effect that the personal liability coverage afforded by the policy was not applicable by virtue of an exclusion for:

". . . . bodily injury or property damage. . . . arising out of . . . . watercraft. . . . with inboard or inboard-outdrive motor power of more than 50 horsepower owned by or rented to an insured. . . ."

The trial court acknowledged from evidence that "there are several generally accepted points on the powertrain of the watercraft in controversy to measure horsepower. . . ." But it found that the insurance policy clearly referred to motor horsepower only. Concluding that the pertinent exclusion was unambiguous and applicable to the circumstances under review, the court granted the insurer's motion for declaratory judgment.

The insured appealed, asserting that the exclusionary language was ambiguous. They contended that the 60 horsepower of the motor was not determining, and introduced expert testimony that the horsepower of the craft's pump was slightly over 20.

The insurer presented testimony of an expert who said that he did not know of any watercraft that was identified in terms of pump horsepower. He testified that the personal watercraft in question was listed by NADA as having 60 HP and by ABOS as having 57.1 HP.

The appeal court stressed that insurance contract language must be given the meaning understood by ordinary people. Accordingly, it concluded that the commonly understood meaning of "horsepower," with respect to watercraft, related to the motor. There was no ambiguity in the exclusion.

The judgment of the trial court was affirmed in favor of the insurer and against the insured.

(THOMAS ET UX., Appellant v. PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COMPANY ET AL., Appellees. Florida District Court of Appeal. No. 95-1385. May 10, 1996. CCH 1996 Fire and Casualty Cases, Paragraph 5684.)