Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Massani

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Massani

627 So. 2d 1199, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 11850, 1993 WL 492596

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 30, 1993

DocketNo. 92-2137

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 627 So. 2d 1199 (Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Massani) 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

Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Massani, 627 So. 2d 1199, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 11850, 1993 WL 492596 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court abused its discretion in failing to permit the defendant to amend its answer to defeat the last minute motion for judgment on the pleadings. The parties were fully prepared to try the issues of uninsured motorist coverage, liability and comparative negligence. Therefore, it is undisputed that the plaintiff would not have been surprised or prejudiced by this amendment. See St. Petersburg Auto. Museum v. Thompson, 561 So.2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Azemco (N. Am.), Inc. v. Brown, 553 So.2d 1245 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).

The trial court also erred in directing a verdict against the defendant on its seat belt defense. There was sufficient evidence presented to withstand a motion for directed verdict. See Insurance Co. of N. Am. v. Pasakarnis, 451 So.2d 447 (Fla.1984).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial consistent with this opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial court abused its discretion in failing to permit the defendant to amend its answer to defeat the last minute motion for judgment on the pleadings. The parties were fully prepared to try the issues of uninsured motorist coverage, liability and comparative negligence. Therefore, it is undisputed that the plaintiff would not have been surprised or prejudiced by this amendment. See St. Petersburg Auto. Museum v. Thompson, 561 So.2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Azemco (N. Am.), Inc. v. Brown, 553 So.2d 1245 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).

The trial court also erred in directing a verdict against the defendant on its seat belt defense. There was sufficient evidence presented to withstand a motion for directed verdict. See Insurance Co. of N. Am. v. Pasakarnis, 451 So.2d 447 (Fla.1984).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial consistent with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

627 So. 2d 1199, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 11850, 1993 WL 492596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/auto-owners-insurance-co-v-massani-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack