Johnson v. Travelers Indem. Co.

438 So. 2d 1045
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedOctober 14, 1983
DocketAR-315
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 438 So. 2d 1045 (Johnson v. Travelers Indem. 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
Johnson v. Travelers Indem. Co., 438 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Opinion

438 So.2d 1045 (1983)

T. Sol JOHNSON, Appellant,
v.
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY and Steven Tracy Williams, Appellees.

No. AR-315.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

October 14, 1983.

Dennis K. Larry of Clark, Partington, Hart, Hart & Johnson, Pensacola, for appellant.

Philip A. Bates of Emmanuel, Sheppard & Condon, Pensacola, for appellee Travelers Indem. Co.

Robert G. Kerrigan of Kerrigan, Estess & Rankin, Pensacola and Joel S. Perwin of Podhurst, Orseck, Parks, Josefsberg, Eaton, Meadow & Olin, Miami, for appellee Steven Tracy Williams.

PER CURIAM.

Johnson appeals a final summary judgment finding no coverage by Travelers for a 1980 Camaro automobile under a commercial automobile insurance policy issued to Johnson's law firm. We affirm.

Johnson argues that there was an oral contract which extended the same coverage *1046 under the commercial policy as he previously had under a family policy issued by Travelers and also argues that the Camaro was covered even though it was not listed on the policy's declaration sheet.

In its summary judgment, the trial court specifically stated that even assuming Johnson had the family policy coverage, he had failed to notify Travelers within the prescribed thirty days that he had acquired the car.

The thirty-day notice requirement was not tied to premium notices as it was in Beasley v. Wolf, 151 So.2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963), where the link created an ambiguity precluding summary judgment. Here, the language of the thirty-day notice requirement is clear and unambiguous. The commercial policy did not list the Camaro as an insured vehicle, nor did Johnson notify Travelers of the acquisition of the car within thirty days of his acquiring it. Therefore, the Camaro was not covered by the commercial policy, even assuming the same family policy coverage had been extended. Lowe v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 420 So.2d 318 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).

The final summary judgment is AFFIRMED.

LARRY G. SMITH, WENTWORTH and JOANOS, JJ., concur.

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

Related

General SEC. Ins. Co. v. BARREENTINE
829 So. 2d 980 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Rabatie v. US SEC. Ins. Co.
581 So. 2d 1327 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Reliance Ins. Co. v. D'AMICO
528 So. 2d 533 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
Shelter Mutual Insurance Co. v. Baker
753 S.W.2d 646 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
438 So. 2d 1045, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-travelers-indem-co-fladistctapp-1983.