Benchina v. Government Employees Insurance Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Benchina v. Government Employees Insurance Co.

490 So. 2d 178, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1376, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8530

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 19, 1986

DocketNo. 84-1606

StatusPublished

This text of 490 So. 2d 178 (Benchina v. Government Employees Insurance Co.) 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

Benchina v. Government Employees Insurance Co., 490 So. 2d 178, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1376, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8530 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

PER CURIAM.

We deny GEICO’s motion for rehearing, but grant its alternative motion for clarification. Accordingly, we withdraw our opinion dated March 6, 1986 and substitute the following opinion in its place.

Frank Benchina appeals a final summary judgment holding that his father’s insurance carrier, Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO), was not legally obligated to pay the claim filed by Benchi-na under his father’s uninsured motorist policy. Benchina argues that although the GEICO insurance contract specifically excluded coverage upon the insured’s signing of a release, such exclusions have been judicially interpreted to result in a forfeiture of coverage only when the insurance carrier has been prejudiced by the release. See Tucker v. Seward, 400 So.2d 505 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Southeast Fidelity Insurance Company v. Earnest, 395 So.2d 230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Here the record reveals the existence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding prejudice to GEI-CO, thus precluding the entry of summary judgment. See Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966); O’Connell v. Walt Disney World Company, 413 So.2d 444 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

UPCHURCH and SHARP, JJ., and GO-SHORN, G.S., Associate Judge, concur.

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

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

PER CURIAM.

We deny GEICO’s motion for rehearing, but grant its alternative motion for clarification. Accordingly, we withdraw our opinion dated March 6, 1986 and substitute the following opinion in its place.

Frank Benchina appeals a final summary judgment holding that his father’s insurance carrier, Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO), was not legally obligated to pay the claim filed by Benchi-na under his father’s uninsured motorist policy. Benchina argues that although the GEICO insurance contract specifically excluded coverage upon the insured’s signing of a release, such exclusions have been judicially interpreted to result in a forfeiture of coverage only when the insurance carrier has been prejudiced by the release. See Tucker v. Seward, 400 So.2d 505 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Southeast Fidelity Insurance Company v. Earnest, 395 So.2d 230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Here the record reveals the existence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding prejudice to GEI-CO, thus precluding the entry of summary judgment. See Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966); O’Connell v. Walt Disney World Company, 413 So.2d 444 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

UPCHURCH and SHARP, JJ., and GO-SHORN, G.S., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

490 So. 2d 178, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1376, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benchina-v-government-employees-insurance-co-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack