General Juices Corporation v. The Home Insurance Company

Fifth Circuit

General Juices Corporation v. The Home Insurance Company

410 F.2d 1138, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12290

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 22, 1969

Docket26881_1

StatusPublished

This text of 410 F.2d 1138 (General Juices Corporation v. The Home Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

General Juices Corporation v. The Home Insurance Company, 410 F.2d 1138, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12290 (5th Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The suit was for reformation of an endorsement to an existing insurance policy, based upon an alleged parol agreement. It was tried below without a jury. The trial judge denied relief, based upon concise findings of fact. We affirm.

The findings below, including the controlling findings (1) that the conversations relied upon between Home’s agent and General Juices’ president failed to show a meeting of the minds as to the essential elements of a contract of insurance, 1 and (2) that plaintiff failed to establish that Home’s agent had either real or apparent authority to issue the requested endorsement without the approval of Home, are not shown to be “clearly erroneous” 2 . Despite the appellant’s vigorous argument to the contrary, this ends the matter.

Affirmed.

1

. See Collins v. Aetna Insurance Co., (Fla.Sup.Ct.1931), 103 Fla. 848, 138 So. 369.

2

. F.R.Civ.P. Rule 52(a).

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

PER CURIAM:

The suit was for reformation of an endorsement to an existing insurance policy, based upon an alleged parol agreement. It was tried below without a jury. The trial judge denied relief, based upon concise findings of fact. We affirm.

The findings below, including the controlling findings (1) that the conversations relied upon between Home’s agent and General Juices’ president failed to show a meeting of the minds as to the essential elements of a contract of insurance, 1 and (2) that plaintiff failed to establish that Home’s agent had either real or apparent authority to issue the requested endorsement without the approval of Home, are not shown to be “clearly erroneous” 2 . Despite the appellant’s vigorous argument to the contrary, this ends the matter.

Affirmed.

1

. See Collins v. Aetna Insurance Co., (Fla.Sup.Ct.1931), 103 Fla. 848, 138 So. 369.

2

. F.R.Civ.P. Rule 52(a).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

410 F.2d 1138, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/general-juices-corporation-v-the-home-insurance-company-ca5-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack