Continental Casualty Co. v. Black & Black, P.A.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Continental Casualty Co. v. Black & Black, P.A.

674 So. 2d 163, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4386, 1996 WL 210840

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 1, 1996

DocketNo. 95-3413

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 674 So. 2d 163 (Continental Casualty Co. v. Black & Black, P.A.) 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

Continental Casualty Co. v. Black & Black, P.A., 674 So. 2d 163, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4386, 1996 WL 210840 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Continental Casualty Company, appeals from an adverse final judgment. We reverse finding that the trial court erred, as a matter of law, by granting partial summary judgment against the defendant and by finding that there was legal malpractice insurance coverage. After examining the insurance policy, the second amended complaint, and the trial court’s order dismissing all counts except the breach of contract count, we find that the language of the “return of fees” exclusion is clear and unambiguous, that the “return of fees” exclusion is applicable, and that, as such, it excludes an action that was brought for excessive fees charged. See, Evanston Ins. Co. v. Fred A. Tucker & Co., 872 F.2d 278 (9th Cir.1989); Cohen v. Empire Casualty Co., 771 P.2d 29 (Colo.Ct.App.1989); Hofing v. CNA Ins. Cos., 247 N.J.Super. 82, 588 A.2d 864 (App.Div.1991); National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Shane and Shane Co., 78 Ohio App.3d 765, 605 N.E.2d 1325 (1992). Because this issue is dispositive, we do not need to address the second issue raised on appeal.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Continental Casualty Company, appeals from an adverse final judgment. We reverse finding that the trial court erred, as a matter of law, by granting partial summary judgment against the defendant and by finding that there was legal malpractice insurance coverage. After examining the insurance policy, the second amended complaint, and the trial court’s order dismissing all counts except the breach of contract count, we find that the language of the “return of fees” exclusion is clear and unambiguous, that the “return of fees” exclusion is applicable, and that, as such, it excludes an action that was brought for excessive fees charged. See, Evanston Ins. Co. v. Fred A. Tucker & Co., 872 F.2d 278 (9th Cir.1989); Cohen v. Empire Casualty Co., 771 P.2d 29 (Colo.Ct.App.1989); Hofing v. CNA Ins. Cos., 247 N.J.Super. 82, 588 A.2d 864 (App.Div.1991); National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Shane and Shane Co., 78 Ohio App.3d 765, 605 N.E.2d 1325 (1992). Because this issue is dispositive, we do not need to address the second issue raised on appeal.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

674 So. 2d 163, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4386, 1996 WL 210840, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/continental-casualty-co-v-black-black-pa-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack