Box v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Box v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co.

187 So. 2d 58, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5434

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 31, 1966

DocketNo. 65-883

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 187 So. 2d 58 (Box v. Massachusetts Bonding & 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

Box v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co., 187 So. 2d 58, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5434 (Fla. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The summary final judgment which is appealed was entered upon the ground that the issues presented by the pleadings were res adjudicata. We are unable to agree with the trial judge on that ground. Nevertheless, we hold that the judgment ■should be affirmed upon the rule that a correct judgment should not be reversed because of a wrong reason given.

The parties to this appeal have argued that the judgment may be affirmed upon the facts which appear without genuine issue. The controlling question of law is whether these facts show that an automobile was covered by a policy issued by appel-lee. We hold that it affirmatively appears as a matter of law from the facts presented to the trial court that the automobile was not covered. See Hicks v. Land, Fla.App. 1960, 117 So.2d 11; Coleman v. Atlantic National Insurance Co., Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 620.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The summary final judgment which is appealed was entered upon the ground that the issues presented by the pleadings were res adjudicata. We are unable to agree with the trial judge on that ground. Nevertheless, we hold that the judgment ■should be affirmed upon the rule that a correct judgment should not be reversed because of a wrong reason given.

The parties to this appeal have argued that the judgment may be affirmed upon the facts which appear without genuine issue. The controlling question of law is whether these facts show that an automobile was covered by a policy issued by appel-lee. We hold that it affirmatively appears as a matter of law from the facts presented to the trial court that the automobile was not covered. See Hicks v. Land, Fla.App. 1960, 117 So.2d 11; Coleman v. Atlantic National Insurance Co., Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 620.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 So. 2d 58, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5434, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/box-v-massachusetts-bonding-insurance-co-fladistctapp-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack