Kadar v. Iowa National Mutual Insurance

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kadar v. Iowa National Mutual Insurance

374 So. 2d 1075, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 15447

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 15, 1979

DocketNo. MM-214

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 374 So. 2d 1075 (Kadar v. Iowa National Mutual Insurance) 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

Kadar v. Iowa National Mutual Insurance, 374 So. 2d 1075, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 15447 (Fla. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinions

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Judge.

Appellant sued her automobile insurer for uninsured motorist coverage benefits of $50,000, the limit of appellant’s liability coverage. The insurer answered that appellant’s uninsured motorist benefits were $15,000 only, as shown by the policy. Appellant filed a purported reply saying she wasn’t given an opportunity to purchase uninsured motorist coverage equal to her liability coverage. After summary judg[1076]*1076ment was entered for the insurer, there being no doubt that the policy was written for only $15,000 of uninsured motorist benefits, appellant timely sought rehearing, Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.530, and an opportunity to amend her complaint, Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.190, to seek reformation of the policy for the insurer’s asserted failure to offer uninsured motorist coverage equal to appellant’s liability limits. That relief was denied.

A motion for rehearing and for leave to amend after entry of an adverse summary judgment, though permissible under the rules, is at best a precarious practice. Roberts v. Braynon, 90 So.2d 623 (Fla.1956); Inman v. The Club on Sailboat Key, Inc., 342 So.2d 1069 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Yet considering the limitations on summary judgments and this plaintiff’s prior allegations in the purported reply to the insurer’s answer, the timely motion for leave to amend should have been granted. If on remand plaintiff amends and ultimately prevails, no award on account of attorney’s fees will be made for this appeal.

REVERSED.

SHIVERS, J., concurs.* MILLS, J., dissents.*

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

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Judge.

Appellant sued her automobile insurer for uninsured motorist coverage benefits of $50,000, the limit of appellant’s liability coverage. The insurer answered that appellant’s uninsured motorist benefits were $15,000 only, as shown by the policy. Appellant filed a purported reply saying she wasn’t given an opportunity to purchase uninsured motorist coverage equal to her liability coverage. After summary judg[1076]*1076ment was entered for the insurer, there being no doubt that the policy was written for only $15,000 of uninsured motorist benefits, appellant timely sought rehearing, Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.530, and an opportunity to amend her complaint, Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.190, to seek reformation of the policy for the insurer’s asserted failure to offer uninsured motorist coverage equal to appellant’s liability limits. That relief was denied.

A motion for rehearing and for leave to amend after entry of an adverse summary judgment, though permissible under the rules, is at best a precarious practice. Roberts v. Braynon, 90 So.2d 623 (Fla.1956); Inman v. The Club on Sailboat Key, Inc., 342 So.2d 1069 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Yet considering the limitations on summary judgments and this plaintiff’s prior allegations in the purported reply to the insurer’s answer, the timely motion for leave to amend should have been granted. If on remand plaintiff amends and ultimately prevails, no award on account of attorney’s fees will be made for this appeal.

REVERSED.

SHIVERS, J., concurs.* MILLS, J., dissents.*

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

374 So. 2d 1075, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 15447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kadar-v-iowa-national-mutual-insurance-fladistctapp-1979.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack