Assicurazioni Generali v. Schwartz

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Assicurazioni Generali v. Schwartz

675 So. 2d 194, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 5506, 1996 WL 280034

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 29, 1996

DocketNos. 95-0014, 95-1112

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 675 So. 2d 194 (Assicurazioni Generali v. Schwartz) 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

Assicurazioni Generali v. Schwartz, 675 So. 2d 194, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 5506, 1996 WL 280034 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Insurers appeal from two final judgments in favor of mortgagees. As to the first, on the merits, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. As to the second, awarding attorney’s fees and costs, we affirm.

The only substantive reversal is with respect to the award of $96,247 for personal property loss. This was error. The mortgagee clause unequivocally limits loss payment for mortgage holders to “covered loss or damage to buildings or structures.” The findings of the trial court as to reformation and receipt, while also erroneous, do not affect the result; namely, the obligation of appellant to pay for the loss of the building. Appellant’s remaining arguments are not persuasive.

GLICKSTEIN, WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Insurers appeal from two final judgments in favor of mortgagees. As to the first, on the merits, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. As to the second, awarding attorney’s fees and costs, we affirm.

The only substantive reversal is with respect to the award of $96,247 for personal property loss. This was error. The mortgagee clause unequivocally limits loss payment for mortgage holders to “covered loss or damage to buildings or structures.” The findings of the trial court as to reformation and receipt, while also erroneous, do not affect the result; namely, the obligation of appellant to pay for the loss of the building. Appellant’s remaining arguments are not persuasive.

GLICKSTEIN, WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

675 So. 2d 194, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 5506, 1996 WL 280034, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/assicurazioni-generali-v-schwartz-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack