Denmark v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Denmark v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co.

384 So. 2d 912, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 23163

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 4, 1980

DocketNo. 79-1767

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 384 So. 2d 912 (Denmark v. Nationwide Mutual Fire 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

Denmark v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 384 So. 2d 912, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 23163 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm, as we did in Johns v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, 375 So.2d 320 (Fla.2d DCA 1979), based on the reasoning in Williams v. Leatherby Insurance Company, 338 So.2d 70 (Fla.3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 345 So.2d 429 (Fla.1977). We cannot, as appellant urges, subscribe to the view that in every instance in which a motor vehicle is inoperable, its owner need not maintain security as required by Section 627.733, Florida Statutes (1977). See Sherman v. Reserve Insurance Company, 350 So.2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); nor can we formulate, as both parties request, a hard and fast rule applicable to all situations involving the question of whether security is required. That question is essentially one of fact and for the trial court to resolve. Compare Tapscott v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 330 So.2d 475 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), and Ward v. Florida Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, 375 So.2d 898 (Fla.1st DCA 1979).

AFFIRMED.

RYDER, Acting C. J., and DANAHY and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm, as we did in Johns v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, 375 So.2d 320 (Fla.2d DCA 1979), based on the reasoning in Williams v. Leatherby Insurance Company, 338 So.2d 70 (Fla.3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 345 So.2d 429 (Fla.1977). We cannot, as appellant urges, subscribe to the view that in every instance in which a motor vehicle is inoperable, its owner need not maintain security as required by Section 627.733, Florida Statutes (1977). See Sherman v. Reserve Insurance Company, 350 So.2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); nor can we formulate, as both parties request, a hard and fast rule applicable to all situations involving the question of whether security is required. That question is essentially one of fact and for the trial court to resolve. Compare Tapscott v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 330 So.2d 475 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), and Ward v. Florida Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, 375 So.2d 898 (Fla.1st DCA 1979).

AFFIRMED.

RYDER, Acting C. J., and DANAHY and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

384 So. 2d 912, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 23163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/denmark-v-nationwide-mutual-fire-insurance-co-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack