American Security Insurance v. Perry

District Court of Appeal of Florida

American Security Insurance v. Perry

198 So. 2d 86, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4742

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 18, 1967

DocketNo. 66-630

StatusPublished

This text of 198 So. 2d 86 (American Security Insurance v. Perry) 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 Security Insurance v. Perry, 198 So. 2d 86, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4742 (Fla. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The garnishee, American Security Insurance Company, appeals a summary final judgment for the plaintiff-garnishor, Robert J. Perry. The appellant has presented five points on appeal, all of which argue in essence that there was a genuine issue of material fact upon appellant’s claimed defense that its policy was rendered unenforceable by its insured’s lack of co-operation. The claimed issue was based upon the failure of one of the insured to appear at trial.

It affirmatively appears without genuine issue that the defense was not available under the facts of this case for two reasons: (1) The insurer failed to make an adequate effort to locate the insured. Cf. American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Vliet, 148 Fla. 568, 4 So.2d 862, 139 A.L.R. 767; (2) the insured’s absence at the trial was not prejudicial to the defense of the cause of action because the insured had by admissions in the record eliminated himself as a material witness. Cf. Barnes v. Pennsylvania Threshermen & F. Mut. Cas. Ins. Co., Fla. App.1962, 146 So.2d 119; American Fire and Casualty Company v. Collura, Fla. App.1964, 163 So.2d 784.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The garnishee, American Security Insurance Company, appeals a summary final judgment for the plaintiff-garnishor, Robert J. Perry. The appellant has presented five points on appeal, all of which argue in essence that there was a genuine issue of material fact upon appellant’s claimed defense that its policy was rendered unenforceable by its insured’s lack of co-operation. The claimed issue was based upon the failure of one of the insured to appear at trial.

It affirmatively appears without genuine issue that the defense was not available under the facts of this case for two reasons: (1) The insurer failed to make an adequate effort to locate the insured. Cf. American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Vliet, 148 Fla. 568, 4 So.2d 862, 139 A.L.R. 767; (2) the insured’s absence at the trial was not prejudicial to the defense of the cause of action because the insured had by admissions in the record eliminated himself as a material witness. Cf. Barnes v. Pennsylvania Threshermen & F. Mut. Cas. Ins. Co., Fla. App.1962, 146 So.2d 119; American Fire and Casualty Company v. Collura, Fla. App.1964, 163 So.2d 784.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 So. 2d 86, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4742, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-security-insurance-v-perry-fladistctapp-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack