Central National Insurance v. Lamos

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Central National Insurance v. Lamos

287 So. 2d 349, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 6180

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 18, 1973

DocketNos. 73-22, 73-23

StatusPublished

This text of 287 So. 2d 349 (Central National Insurance v. Lamos) 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

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

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a consolidated appeal from a summary final judgment involving the is[350]*350sue 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

PER CURIAM.

This is a consolidated appeal from a summary final judgment involving the is[350]*350sue 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 So. 2d 349, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 6180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/central-national-insurance-v-lamos-fladistctapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack