Lancione v. California Union Insurance

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lancione v. California Union Insurance

382 So. 2d 821, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16553

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 15, 1980

DocketNo. 79-1014

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 382 So. 2d 821 (Lancione v. California Union 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

Lancione v. California Union Insurance, 382 So. 2d 821, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16553 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Judge.

The jury found that the plaintiff-appellant had been responsible for the arson which destroyed his insured property. His sole point on appeal claims the right to a directed verdict in his favor on that ques[822]*822tion. We conclude, to the contrary, that the circumstantial evidence amply, indeed overwhelmingly, supports both the action of the trial court in denying that motion below and the jury’s resolution of the issue. Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co., 349 So.2d 1187 (Fla.1977); Lopez v. Mechanics & Traders Ins. Co., 125 Fla. 252, 169 So. 670 (1936); see Chafetz v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 332 F.2d 152 (5th Cir. 1964).

Rodgers v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 379 So.2d 700 (Fla.2d DCA 1980), upon which the appellant relies, is decisively distinguishable and therefore does not control. Among many other things, the record here, unlike Rodgers, shows that Lancione was actually at the scene of the fire immediately before it took place. The jury was plainly free to reject, as it did, his unsupported and highly dubious “explanation” of that presence. See Songer v. State, 322 So.2d 481 (Fla.1975).

Affirmed.

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

SCHWARTZ, Judge.

The jury found that the plaintiff-appellant had been responsible for the arson which destroyed his insured property. His sole point on appeal claims the right to a directed verdict in his favor on that ques[822]*822tion. We conclude, to the contrary, that the circumstantial evidence amply, indeed overwhelmingly, supports both the action of the trial court in denying that motion below and the jury’s resolution of the issue. Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co., 349 So.2d 1187 (Fla.1977); Lopez v. Mechanics & Traders Ins. Co., 125 Fla. 252, 169 So. 670 (1936); see Chafetz v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 332 F.2d 152 (5th Cir. 1964).

Rodgers v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 379 So.2d 700 (Fla.2d DCA 1980), upon which the appellant relies, is decisively distinguishable and therefore does not control. Among many other things, the record here, unlike Rodgers, shows that Lancione was actually at the scene of the fire immediately before it took place. The jury was plainly free to reject, as it did, his unsupported and highly dubious “explanation” of that presence. See Songer v. State, 322 So.2d 481 (Fla.1975).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

382 So. 2d 821, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lancione-v-california-union-insurance-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack