Meyer v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Meyer v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

360 So. 2d 462, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16250

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 5, 1978

DocketNo. 77-457

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 360 So. 2d 462 (Meyer v. Aetna Casualty & Surety 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

Meyer v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 360 So. 2d 462, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16250 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

KEHOE, Judge.

Appellant, plaintiff below, -brings this appeal from an order dated February 15,1977, entered by the trial court dismissing his complaint for lack of jurisdiction. We reverse.

After reviewing the record in this cause, we are of the opinion that appellant’s complaint was improperly dismissed by the trial court for lack of jurisdiction. The complaint sought basically the reformation of a contract of insurance to reflect the intent of the parties. We believe that the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Art. V, § 5(b), Fla.Const. See generally Petrine v. D. Black & Sons, Inc., 338 So.2d 912 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Perez v. State Auto Insurance, 270 So.2d 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); and Poindexter v. Equitable Life Assurance Society, 127 W.Va. 671, 34 S.E.2d 340 (1945). Accordingly, the order appealed is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

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

KEHOE, Judge.

Appellant, plaintiff below, -brings this appeal from an order dated February 15,1977, entered by the trial court dismissing his complaint for lack of jurisdiction. We reverse.

After reviewing the record in this cause, we are of the opinion that appellant’s complaint was improperly dismissed by the trial court for lack of jurisdiction. The complaint sought basically the reformation of a contract of insurance to reflect the intent of the parties. We believe that the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Art. V, § 5(b), Fla.Const. See generally Petrine v. D. Black & Sons, Inc., 338 So.2d 912 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Perez v. State Auto Insurance, 270 So.2d 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); and Poindexter v. Equitable Life Assurance Society, 127 W.Va. 671, 34 S.E.2d 340 (1945). Accordingly, the order appealed is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

360 So. 2d 462, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meyer-v-aetna-casualty-surety-co-fladistctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack