Ambassador Insurance v. Oper

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ambassador Insurance v. Oper

406 So. 2d 1218, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21762

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 1, 1981

DocketNo. 81-1216

StatusPublished

This text of 406 So. 2d 1218 (Ambassador Insurance v. Oper) 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.

Bluebook

Ambassador Insurance v. Oper, 406 So. 2d 1218, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21762 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal questions the validity of a summary judgment finding that the appellant afforded coverage to the appellee for professional malpractice.

We reverse because it appears from the record that there were material issues of fact relating, first, to whether or not the appellee was an insured and, secondly, to whether or not the claims against him arose out of the course and scope of his employment with the hospital which was the named insured under the policy. Yambo v. General American Life Insurance Company, 400 So.2d 770 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); State Farm Mutual Insurance Company v. Zisook, 393 So.2d 1191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Villa v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, 354 So.2d 122 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966).

Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the matter is returned to the trial court to receive evidence on these issues.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This appeal questions the validity of a summary judgment finding that the appellant afforded coverage to the appellee for professional malpractice.

We reverse because it appears from the record that there were material issues of fact relating, first, to whether or not the appellee was an insured and, secondly, to whether or not the claims against him arose out of the course and scope of his employment with the hospital which was the named insured under the policy. Yambo v. General American Life Insurance Company, 400 So.2d 770 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); State Farm Mutual Insurance Company v. Zisook, 393 So.2d 1191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Villa v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, 354 So.2d 122 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966).

Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the matter is returned to the trial court to receive evidence on these issues.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

406 So. 2d 1218, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21762, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ambassador-insurance-v-oper-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack