Brown v. Colonial Penn Insurance Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Brown v. Colonial Penn Insurance Co.

666 So. 2d 226, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 13481, 1995 WL 763350

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 29, 1995

DocketNo. 95-00220

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 666 So. 2d 226 (Brown v. Colonial Penn 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

Brown v. Colonial Penn Insurance Co., 666 So. 2d 226, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 13481, 1995 WL 763350 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in a personal injury action appeals a final summary judgment for the defendant, Colonial Penn Insurance Company, finding no coverage for uninsured motorist (UM) benefits. We reverse because a material issue of fact remains unresolved regarding whether the driver was using the car with the owner’s permission.

The plaintiffs motion for summary judgment was based on the assertion that, under the terms and conditions of the Colonial Penn policy, the car in which the injured minor was a passenger was not an insured car for purposes of UM coverage because the driver of the car did not have the owner’s permission to be driving the car. The record on appeal contains no evidence that the driver did not have the owner’s permission. The plaintiffs first complaint did contain that assertion, but the amended complaints did not. A party is not bound by an admission made in a preliminary pleading which is successfully attacked by the opponent, as in this case. Vann v. Hobbs, 197 So.2d 43 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967). See also Adams v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 392 So.2d 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).

Since the record contains no affidavits, testimony, or other evidence regarding the pivotal issue of whether the driver had permission from the owner to drive the car, summary judgment was improper.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and PARKER and FULMER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in a personal injury action appeals a final summary judgment for the defendant, Colonial Penn Insurance Company, finding no coverage for uninsured motorist (UM) benefits. We reverse because a material issue of fact remains unresolved regarding whether the driver was using the car with the owner’s permission.

The plaintiffs motion for summary judgment was based on the assertion that, under the terms and conditions of the Colonial Penn policy, the car in which the injured minor was a passenger was not an insured car for purposes of UM coverage because the driver of the car did not have the owner’s permission to be driving the car. The record on appeal contains no evidence that the driver did not have the owner’s permission. The plaintiffs first complaint did contain that assertion, but the amended complaints did not. A party is not bound by an admission made in a preliminary pleading which is successfully attacked by the opponent, as in this case. Vann v. Hobbs, 197 So.2d 43 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967). See also Adams v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 392 So.2d 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).

Since the record contains no affidavits, testimony, or other evidence regarding the pivotal issue of whether the driver had permission from the owner to drive the car, summary judgment was improper.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and PARKER and FULMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

666 So. 2d 226, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 13481, 1995 WL 763350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-colonial-penn-insurance-co-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack