Gauty v. Peninsular Fire Insurance
This text of 407 So. 2d 1093 (Gauty v. Peninsular Fire Insurance) 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.
Opinion
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
407 So. 2d 1093, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 28722, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gauty-v-peninsular-fire-insurance-fladistctapp-1982.