McCurley v. Auto-Owners Ins.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McCurley v. Auto-Owners Ins.

356 So. 2d 68, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15529

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 15, 1978

DocketNo. GG-244

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 356 So. 2d 68 (McCurley v. Auto-Owners Ins.) 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

McCurley v. Auto-Owners Ins., 356 So. 2d 68, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15529 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

SMITH, Judge.

McCurley appeals from an adverse summary judgment dismissing his action against the owner, driver, and insurer of a vehicle which collided with McCurley’s vehicle. McCurley’s complaint sought to set aside, as having been obtained by fraud, a [69]*69complete release signed by McCurley and delivered to the insurer’s agent in' exchange for $2,000. The release recites that the payment was in full settlement of all claims, but McCurley testified the agent told him the payment and release were for his automobile damage alone, not for McCurley’s bodily injury. McCurley did not read the release and, if his testimony is taken as true, he apparently overlooked the recitation on the face of the draft that $700 of the payment was for “P. D.” and $1,300 was for “B. I.”

In reviewing the summary judgment dismissing McCurley’s claim, we must credit his testimony from which a jury could find the insurance agent falsely and fraudulently misrepresented the contents of the release. The record does not show sufficiently for a summary judgment that McCurley unjustifiably relied on the asserted misrepresentations or that McCurley was negligent in failing to ascertain the true facts. Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. Thompson, 93 Fla. 30, 111 So. 525 (1927); Buchanan v. Clinton, 293 So.2d 120 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Bryant v. Small, 236 So.2d 150 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). The movants did not demonstrate the absence of any material issue of fact.

REVERSED.

MILLS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, J., concur.

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

SMITH, Judge.

McCurley appeals from an adverse summary judgment dismissing his action against the owner, driver, and insurer of a vehicle which collided with McCurley’s vehicle. McCurley’s complaint sought to set aside, as having been obtained by fraud, a [69]*69complete release signed by McCurley and delivered to the insurer’s agent in' exchange for $2,000. The release recites that the payment was in full settlement of all claims, but McCurley testified the agent told him the payment and release were for his automobile damage alone, not for McCurley’s bodily injury. McCurley did not read the release and, if his testimony is taken as true, he apparently overlooked the recitation on the face of the draft that $700 of the payment was for “P. D.” and $1,300 was for “B. I.”

In reviewing the summary judgment dismissing McCurley’s claim, we must credit his testimony from which a jury could find the insurance agent falsely and fraudulently misrepresented the contents of the release. The record does not show sufficiently for a summary judgment that McCurley unjustifiably relied on the asserted misrepresentations or that McCurley was negligent in failing to ascertain the true facts. Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. Thompson, 93 Fla. 30, 111 So. 525 (1927); Buchanan v. Clinton, 293 So.2d 120 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Bryant v. Small, 236 So.2d 150 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). The movants did not demonstrate the absence of any material issue of fact.

REVERSED.

MILLS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

356 So. 2d 68, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15529, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccurley-v-auto-owners-ins-fladistctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack