The owner of a valuable horse placed the animal with a horse farm for care and safekeeping. The horse disappeared while in the custody of the farm. A question arose as to whether the owner's loss was covered under his animal insurance policy. He and the insurer moved for summary judgment with respect to the application of the policy. He appealed a trial court judgment that the policy did not cover the loss.

The summary judgment was based on a policy exclusion for "....any loss arising from mysterious disappearance, escape, or voluntary parting of possession or title to the animal(s) as a result of the insured (or others to whom the animals may have been entrusted) being induced by a fraudulent scheme, trickery or similar false pretenses or consequential loss."

The insured had established that the horse disappeared while under the care of the horse farm, to which he had entrusted the animal. The appeal court concluded that the exclusionary clause was applicable in the circumstances.

The judgment of the trial court was affirmed in favor of the insurance company and against the insured. (SAKS, Appellant v. NATIONAL CASUALTY CO., Appellee. Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District. No. 93-486. September 14, 1993. CCH 1993-94 Fire and Casualty Cases, Paragraph 4501.)