Alejano v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEM.
This text of 378 So. 2d 104 (Alejano v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEM.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Pedro ALEJANO, Appellant,
v.
HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
*105 Kuvin, Klingensmith & Lewis and R. Fred Lewis, Genden & Bach, Miami, for appellant.
Talburt, Kubicki & Bradley and Betsey E. Hartley, Miami, for appellee.
Before PEARSON and HUBBART, JJ., and CHAPPELL, BILL G., Associate Judge.
PER CURIAM.
The final judgment appealed from is affirmed upon a holding that (a) an insurance company has no duty to explain uninsured motorist coverage to an insurance applicant unless the applicant asks for an explanation; Lopez v. Midwest Mutual Insurance Company, 223 So.2d 550 (Fla.3d DCA 1969); Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Yates, 368 So.2d 634 (Fla.2d DCA 1979); and (b) a party who signs his name to an instrument cannot deny its contents on the ground that he signed it without reading it unless he shows facts indicating circumstances which prevented his reading it. All Florida Surety Co. v. Coker, 88 So.2d 508 (Fla. 1956); Allied Van Lines, Inc. v. Bratton, 351 So.2d 344 (Fla. 1977). See also Sutton v. Crane, 101 So.2d 823, 825 (Fla.2d DCA 1958).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
378 So. 2d 104, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 16238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alejano-v-hartford-accident-indem-fladistctapp-1979.