Gauty v. Peninsular Fire Insurance

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gauty v. Peninsular Fire Insurance

407 So. 2d 1093, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 28722

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 5, 1982·No. No. 81-811·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The judgment entered against the appellants, who negligently failed to procure workmen’s compensation coverage for Cepero as an employee of his partnership, is affirmed. See Key v. Goley, 402 So.2d 80 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Sheridan v. Greenberg, 391 So.2d 234 (Fla.3d DCA 1980). However, the trial court is directed to reduce the judgment by $911.82, the amount which Cepero would have paid as an additional premium had the coverage he sought for himself been obtained. Derby v. Blankenship, 217 Ark. 272, 230 S.W.2d 481 (1950); Greenfield v. Insurance Inc., 19 Cal.App.3d 803, 97 Cal.Rptr. 164 (1971).

Affirmed as modified.

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

PER CURIAM.

The judgment entered against the appellants, who negligently failed to procure workmen’s compensation coverage for Cepero as an employee of his partnership, is affirmed. See Key v. Goley, 402 So.2d 80 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Sheridan v. Greenberg, 391 So.2d 234 (Fla.3d DCA 1980). However, the trial court is directed to reduce the judgment by $911.82, the amount which Cepero would have paid as an additional premium had the coverage he sought for himself been obtained. Derby v. Blankenship, 217 Ark. 272, 230 S.W.2d 481 (1950); Greenfield v. Insurance Inc., 19 Cal.App.3d 803, 97 Cal.Rptr. 164 (1971).

Affirmed as modified.

Gauty v. Peninsular Fire Insurance, 407 So. 2d 1093, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 28722 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

407 So. 2d 1093 (Gauty v. Peninsular Fire Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related