FL. MARLINS CLUB v. Certain Underwriters

979 So. 2d 429, 2008 WL 1805785
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedApril 23, 2008
Docket3D07-5
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 979 So. 2d 429 (FL. MARLINS CLUB v. Certain Underwriters) 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
FL. MARLINS CLUB v. Certain Underwriters, 979 So. 2d 429, 2008 WL 1805785 (Fla. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

979 So.2d 429 (2008)

FLORIDA MARLINS BASEBALL CLUB, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company d/b/a Florida Marlins, Appellant,
v.
CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD's LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO. 893/HC/97/9096, Appellee.

No. 3D07-5.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 23, 2008.

Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell and John J. Pelzer, Ft. Lauderdale, for appellant.

Joel S. Perwin; Wicker, Smith, O'Hara, Graham & Ford and Frederick E. Hasty, III, Miami, and Michael A. Holtman; Nelson, Levine de Luca, Horst, and George J. Vogrin, and Thomas J. Brackin, for appellee.

Before GREEN and SALTER, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The Florida Marlins Baseball Club, LLC, appeals a final summary judgment in its action for breach of contract and declaratory judgment seeking disability insurance coverage. We reverse.

We hold that the record demonstrates that genuine issues of material fact remain unresolved precluding summary judgment. Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966). There are still factual issues as to whether the insurer assented or waived compliance with the condition precedent in the policy, and whether the insurer's authorized representative's knowledge about the transfer in the team's ownership constitutes knowledge by the insurer. See Hardy v. Am. So. Life Ins. Co., 211 So.2d 559 (Fla.1968); Essex Ins. Co. v. Universal Entm't & Skating Ctr., Inc., 665 So.2d 360 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). These issues should be resolved by a jury; summary judgment was improper.

Reversed and remanded.

SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge (concurring).

I entirely agree with reversal. I would point out, moreover, that there is nothing to preclude the trial court, after remand, from entering a summary judgment on the pertinent issue in favor of the Marlins if, as I do, it deems it appropriate. See Avis Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc. v. Garmas, 440 So.2d 1311, 1313 n. 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), review denied, 451 So.2d 848 (Fla.1984).

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

Related

Haas Automation, Inc. v. Fox
156 So. 3d 505 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)
Haas v. Fox
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
979 So. 2d 429, 2008 WL 1805785, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fl-marlins-club-v-certain-underwriters-fladistctapp-2008.