Hill v. Federal Insurance Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hill v. Federal Insurance Co.

867 So. 2d 1195, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 2703, 2004 WL 385056

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 3, 2004

DocketNo. 4D03-2844

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 867 So. 2d 1195 (Hill v. Federal Insurance 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

Hill v. Federal Insurance Co., 867 So. 2d 1195, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 2703, 2004 WL 385056 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant filed this appeal from a cost judgment rendered after appellee prevailed in a declaratory judgment action. The suit sought to determine whether appellant’s litigation expenses, incurred in a controversy with a developer, were a covered loss under a policy issued by appellee to the property owners’ association, of which appellant was a member and director. The trial court determined that appellant was not covered by the policy, as he was acting in his individual capacity in bringing the lawsuits for which he sought recovery of expenses. He appealed that judgment, and this court affirmed.

In this appeal of the cost judgment, the only issue raised in appellant’s abbreviated brief deals with the merits of the underlying judgment. Having raised no errors as to the cost judgment itself, we affirm.

WARNER, KLEIN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant filed this appeal from a cost judgment rendered after appellee prevailed in a declaratory judgment action. The suit sought to determine whether appellant’s litigation expenses, incurred in a controversy with a developer, were a covered loss under a policy issued by appellee to the property owners’ association, of which appellant was a member and director. The trial court determined that appellant was not covered by the policy, as he was acting in his individual capacity in bringing the lawsuits for which he sought recovery of expenses. He appealed that judgment, and this court affirmed.

In this appeal of the cost judgment, the only issue raised in appellant’s abbreviated brief deals with the merits of the underlying judgment. Having raised no errors as to the cost judgment itself, we affirm.

WARNER, KLEIN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

867 So. 2d 1195, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 2703, 2004 WL 385056, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-federal-insurance-co-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack