Hancock v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
This text of 623 So. 2d 536 (Hancock v. State Farm Fire & Casualty 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.
Opinion
Notwithstanding the fact that the declaratory judgment action was improperly entertained, see Bergh v. Canadian Universal Ins. Co., 216 So.2d 436 (Fla.1968); Columbia Casualty v. Zimmerman, 62 So.2d 338 (Fla.1952), the fact finder considered the counterclaim on the merits and found that Hancock wilfully and intentionally threw the glass into Ginelli’s face. We affirm based on Prudential Property & Casualty Ins. v. Swindal, 622 So.2d 467 (Fla.1993) and Landis v. Allstate Ins. Co., 546 So.2d 1051 (Fla.1989). See also AIU Ins. Co. v. Block Marina Investment, Inc., 544 So.2d 998 (Fla.1989).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
623 So. 2d 536, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 7621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hancock-v-state-farm-fire-casualty-co-fladistctapp-1993.