Dimaria ex rel. Dimaria v. Stickney

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dimaria ex rel. Dimaria v. Stickney

448 So. 2d 553, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12429

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 28, 1984

DocketNo. 82-2503

StatusPublished

This text of 448 So. 2d 553 (Dimaria ex rel. Dimaria v. Stickney) 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

Dimaria ex rel. Dimaria v. Stickney, 448 So. 2d 553, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12429 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Involved here are two cases which were consolidated at the trial level, the factual circumstances of which arose from a car accident.

As to the issue raised on appeal, Circuit Court Case No. 81-5048 CA(L) 01 I, we determine that the trial court correctly entered summary final judgment as a matter of law in favor of the insurer with regard to the issue of coverage. Having determined that the driver of the vehicle was not a “covered person” as defined in the policy, we therefore affirm the issue raised on appeal upon the authority of Henigson v. Davis, 305 So.2d 86 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974), certiorari denied, 315 So.2d 180 (Fla.1975).

As to the matter raised on cross-appeal, in Circuit Court Case No. 81-5426 CA(L) 01 I, we affirm upon the authority of National Union Fire Insurance Co. v. Lenox Liquors, Inc., 358 So.2d 533 (Fla.1977); Kings Point West, Inc. v. North River Ins. Co., 412 So.2d 379 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); and Klaesen Bros., Inc. v. Harbor Ins. Co., 410 So.2d 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).

AFFIRMED.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Involved here are two cases which were consolidated at the trial level, the factual circumstances of which arose from a car accident.

As to the issue raised on appeal, Circuit Court Case No. 81-5048 CA(L) 01 I, we determine that the trial court correctly entered summary final judgment as a matter of law in favor of the insurer with regard to the issue of coverage. Having determined that the driver of the vehicle was not a “covered person” as defined in the policy, we therefore affirm the issue raised on appeal upon the authority of Henigson v. Davis, 305 So.2d 86 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974), certiorari denied, 315 So.2d 180 (Fla.1975).

As to the matter raised on cross-appeal, in Circuit Court Case No. 81-5426 CA(L) 01 I, we affirm upon the authority of National Union Fire Insurance Co. v. Lenox Liquors, Inc., 358 So.2d 533 (Fla.1977); Kings Point West, Inc. v. North River Ins. Co., 412 So.2d 379 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); and Klaesen Bros., Inc. v. Harbor Ins. Co., 410 So.2d 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).

AFFIRMED.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

448 So. 2d 553, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12429, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dimaria-ex-rel-dimaria-v-stickney-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack