Gonzalez v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gonzalez v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

441 So. 2d 681, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 25474

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 25, 1983

DocketNo. 83-445

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 441 So. 2d 681 (Gonzalez v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.) 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

Gonzalez v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 441 So. 2d 681, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 25474 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

What constitutes a reasonable time within which to give notice of an accident under the terms of a policy of insurance is ordinarily an issue of fact. See Continental Casualty Co. v. Shoffstall, 198 So.2d 654 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 204 So.2d 327 (Fla.1967). Here, the appellee/in-surer failed to demonstrate conclusively that notice was unreasonable as a matter of law and, even if unreasonable, that the insurer was substantially prejudiced thereby-

While a presumption of prejudice follows a finding of unreasonable notice, that presumption may be overcome by competent evidence, Tiedtke v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, 222 So.2d 206, 209 (Fla.1969), which ordinarily raises a separate issue of fact. See Ramos v. Northwestern Mutual Insurance Co., 336 So.2d 71 (Fla.1976) (the question of whether the failure of an insured to cooperate with the insurer is so substantially prejudicial as to release an insurer from its obligation is, in most instances, a question of fact). Summary judgment for the insurer was error. See Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966).

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

What constitutes a reasonable time within which to give notice of an accident under the terms of a policy of insurance is ordinarily an issue of fact. See Continental Casualty Co. v. Shoffstall, 198 So.2d 654 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 204 So.2d 327 (Fla.1967). Here, the appellee/in-surer failed to demonstrate conclusively that notice was unreasonable as a matter of law and, even if unreasonable, that the insurer was substantially prejudiced thereby-

While a presumption of prejudice follows a finding of unreasonable notice, that presumption may be overcome by competent evidence, Tiedtke v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, 222 So.2d 206, 209 (Fla.1969), which ordinarily raises a separate issue of fact. See Ramos v. Northwestern Mutual Insurance Co., 336 So.2d 71 (Fla.1976) (the question of whether the failure of an insured to cooperate with the insurer is so substantially prejudicial as to release an insurer from its obligation is, in most instances, a question of fact). Summary judgment for the insurer was error. See Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966).

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

441 So. 2d 681, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 25474, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzalez-v-united-states-fidelity-guaranty-co-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack