¶1Plaintiff and one of several defendants have appealed summary final judgments against them rendered in favor of the defendant insurance carrier. It is contended that the trial court erred in holding that there existed no genuine issue of any material fact and that the defendant insurance carrier was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
¶2Plaintiff Willis claims damages suffered by him as a result of a chemical which was sprayed from an airplane on his pastureland by defendant Luke, thereby depriving him of the use of the pasture for dairy purposes. Luke’s insurance carrier, The Underwriters at Lloyds, London, was joined as a defendant because of a liability insurance contract issued by it to Luke which was in force and effect at the time of the occurrence which gave rise to the cause of action sued upon.
¶3By its summary final judgments appealed herein the trial court construed the insurance contract, and the endorsement issued in connection therewith, as specifically excluding from coverage all liability for claims in respect of damage to or destruction of property caused by or resulting from the use by the assured of all forms of chemicals. In his application for the insurance which by reference was made a part of the policy, the assured Luke specifically stated that he did not desire to purchase chemical liability insurance.
¶4It is our view that the exclusionary endorsement, when construed together with the contract of which it is a part,
¶5The judgment appealed is affirmed.
¶6Affirmed.
¶7. Hughes v. Professional Insurance Corporation (Pla.App.1962), 140 So.2d 340.
¶8. Federal Insurance Company v. Me-Nichols (Fla.1955), 77 So.2d 454.
¶10. State Liquor Stores # 1 v. United States Pire Insurance Co. (Pla.App.1971), 243 So.2d 228.