Andrews v. United Services Automobile Ass'n

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Andrews v. United Services Automobile Ass'n

837 So. 2d 1190, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 2411, 2003 WL 554663

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 28, 2003

DocketNo. 2D01-4852

StatusPublished

This text of 837 So. 2d 1190 (Andrews v. United Services Automobile Ass'n) 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

Andrews v. United Services Automobile Ass'n, 837 So. 2d 1190, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 2411, 2003 WL 554663 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

GREEN, OLIVER L., Senior Judge.

John W. Andrews and Sue Andrews appeal the directed verdict entered in favor of United Services Automobile Association (USAA) in their action against USAA for breach of the insurance contract covering property they used as a rental residential dwelling. We reverse.

USAA moved for a directed verdict on the issue of whether the Andrews’ property was vacant for purposes of the following clause, which excluded coverage for “loss on the Described Location if the dwelling has been vacant for more than 30 consecutive days immediately before the loss. A dwelling being constructed is not considered vacant.” In directing a verdict in favor of USAA, the trial court found that the dwelling was not being constructed and that it was vacant. While the trial court correctly directed a verdict on the issue of whether the dwelling was being constructed, it abused its discretion in directing a verdict on the issue of whether the dwelling was vacant because different conclusions can be drawn from the evidence in this case on that issue. See Moisan v. Frank K. Kriz, Jr., M.D., P.A., 531 So.2d 398, 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Thus, whether the Andrews’ dwelling was vacant was an issue for the jury to decide.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

DAVIS and COVINGTON, JJ. Concur.

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

GREEN, OLIVER L., Senior Judge.

John W. Andrews and Sue Andrews appeal the directed verdict entered in favor of United Services Automobile Association (USAA) in their action against USAA for breach of the insurance contract covering property they used as a rental residential dwelling. We reverse.

USAA moved for a directed verdict on the issue of whether the Andrews’ property was vacant for purposes of the following clause, which excluded coverage for “loss on the Described Location if the dwelling has been vacant for more than 30 consecutive days immediately before the loss. A dwelling being constructed is not considered vacant.” In directing a verdict in favor of USAA, the trial court found that the dwelling was not being constructed and that it was vacant. While the trial court correctly directed a verdict on the issue of whether the dwelling was being constructed, it abused its discretion in directing a verdict on the issue of whether the dwelling was vacant because different conclusions can be drawn from the evidence in this case on that issue. See Moisan v. Frank K. Kriz, Jr., M.D., P.A., 531 So.2d 398, 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Thus, whether the Andrews’ dwelling was vacant was an issue for the jury to decide.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

DAVIS and COVINGTON, JJ. Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

837 So. 2d 1190, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 2411, 2003 WL 554663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andrews-v-united-services-automobile-assn-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack