Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Coastline Diesel, Inc.

252 So. 2d 836, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 6070
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 17, 1971·No. No. 70-1088·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final judgment on an insurance contract covering certain risks arising out of the operation of a garage for the repair of motor vehicles. The insurer is the appellant and the insured is the appellee. The insurer claims that it was not liable for the loss in question because of a specific exclusionary clause in the insurance contract. This basis for relief not only was not raised by appellant in the trial court, but is inconsistent with the theory of non-liability which appellant did raise below. We hold that the effect of the exclusionary clause will not be considered for the first time on appeal. Jackson v. Whitmire Construction Company, Fla.App.1967, 202 So.2d 861, 862; United Services Automobile Association v. Porras, Fla.App.1968, 214 So.2d 749. Without consideration of the exclusion, it appears to us that the appellant was liable on the contract. The judgment imposing such liability is, therefore, affirmed.

Affirmed.

REED, C. J., CROSS, J., and DYKES, ROGER F., Associate Judge, concur.

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

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Coastline Diesel, Inc., 252 So. 2d 836, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 6070 (Fla. Ct. App. 1971).

252 So. 2d 836 (Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Coastline Diesel, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

GEICO Indem. Co. v. Perez
260 So. 3d 342 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018)