American Reliance Insurance Co. v. Riggins

District Court of Appeal of Florida

American Reliance Insurance Co. v. Riggins

604 So. 2d 535, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 8620

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 11, 1992

DocketNos. 91-1173, 91-2099

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 604 So. 2d 535 (American Reliance Insurance Co. v. Riggins) 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

American Reliance Insurance Co. v. Riggins, 604 So. 2d 535, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 8620 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the defendant American Reliance Insurance Company from two non-final orders which grant summary judgment for the plaintiffs Virgil and Carolyn B. Riggins on the declaratory decree and breach of contract counts in a multi-count complaint. The action below arises out of a dispute between the insureds and their insurance carrier concerning insurance coverage for a certain fire loss. We hold that (1) the non-final orders under review are appealable to this court under Article V, Section 4(b)(1) of the Florida Constitution and Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure; and (2) genuine issues of material fact are presented by this record which precluded the entry of the subject summary judgments. Wills v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 351 So.2d 29 (Fla.1977); Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966).

We agree entirely with the defendant insurer that the plaintiff insureds were absolutely required under the contract of insurance herein (1) to provide the insurer upon its request with certain relevant records and documents, and (2) to submit upon request to an examination under oath [536]*536by the insurer, after a fire loss claim is made under the insurance contract. Accordingly, the trial court was clearly in error in requiring, as a prerequisite to the performance of the above acts, that the insurer provide the insureds with certain fire cause and origin reports; there is nothing in the contract of insurance which requires the insurer to produce such reports for the insureds. Nonetheless, genuine issues of material fact are presented on this record relating to whether the insurer, by its conduct, waived the provisions of the contract of insurance requiring the insureds to perform the above-stated acts after a claim was made under the insurance contract. See Sentry Ins. v. Brown, 424 So.2d 780, 784 (Fla. 1st DCA1982), rev. denied, 430 So.2d 452 (Fla.1983); Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Vogel, 195 So.2d 20 (Fla. 2d DCA1967).

We accordingly reverse the summary judgments under review and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings. This reversal will necessarily require the trial court upon remand to vacate the order granting attorney’s fees for the plaintiff.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the defendant American Reliance Insurance Company from two non-final orders which grant summary judgment for the plaintiffs Virgil and Carolyn B. Riggins on the declaratory decree and breach of contract counts in a multi-count complaint. The action below arises out of a dispute between the insureds and their insurance carrier concerning insurance coverage for a certain fire loss. We hold that (1) the non-final orders under review are appealable to this court under Article V, Section 4(b)(1) of the Florida Constitution and Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure; and (2) genuine issues of material fact are presented by this record which precluded the entry of the subject summary judgments. Wills v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 351 So.2d 29 (Fla.1977); Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966).

We agree entirely with the defendant insurer that the plaintiff insureds were absolutely required under the contract of insurance herein (1) to provide the insurer upon its request with certain relevant records and documents, and (2) to submit upon request to an examination under oath [536]*536by the insurer, after a fire loss claim is made under the insurance contract. Accordingly, the trial court was clearly in error in requiring, as a prerequisite to the performance of the above acts, that the insurer provide the insureds with certain fire cause and origin reports; there is nothing in the contract of insurance which requires the insurer to produce such reports for the insureds. Nonetheless, genuine issues of material fact are presented on this record relating to whether the insurer, by its conduct, waived the provisions of the contract of insurance requiring the insureds to perform the above-stated acts after a claim was made under the insurance contract. See Sentry Ins. v. Brown, 424 So.2d 780, 784 (Fla. 1st DCA1982), rev. denied, 430 So.2d 452 (Fla.1983); Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Vogel, 195 So.2d 20 (Fla. 2d DCA1967).

We accordingly reverse the summary judgments under review and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings. This reversal will necessarily require the trial court upon remand to vacate the order granting attorney’s fees for the plaintiff.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

604 So. 2d 535, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 8620, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-reliance-insurance-co-v-riggins-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack