Central National Insurance v. Lamos

287 So. 2d 349, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 6180
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 18, 1973·No. Nos. 73-22, 73-23·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a consolidated appeal from a summary final judgment involving the is[350] sue of whether coverage was provided by an automobile liability insurance policy. The trial court found that coverage existed under the rule set forth in Makris v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Fla.App.1972, 267 So.2d 105. Our review of the record convinces us that error has not been shown. We have considered appellant’s further contention that coverage was erroneously found to exist because of the failure of its policyholder to promptly inform it of the claim. We find this contention insufficient to present error on the basis of the record. See Tiedtke v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, Fla.1969, 222 So.2d 206.

Affirmed.

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

Central National Insurance v. Lamos, 287 So. 2d 349, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 6180 (Fla. Ct. App. 1973).

287 So. 2d 349 (Central National Insurance v. Lamos) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Makris v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
267 So. 2d 105 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1972)
Tiedtke v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York
222 So. 2d 206 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1969)