Pitofsky v. Liberty Mutual Insurance

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pitofsky v. Liberty Mutual Insurance

386 So. 2d 1235, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17466

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 15, 1980

DocketNo. 79-2433

StatusPublished

This text of 386 So. 2d 1235 (Pitofsky v. Liberty 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

Pitofsky v. Liberty Mutual Insurance, 386 So. 2d 1235, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17466 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.

Pitofsky appeals from a final judgment entered in favor of Liberty Mutual Insurance Company after a non-jury trial. He contends that the trial court erred in refusing to reform an insurance policy issued by Liberty Mutual so as to make Pitofsky’s mother, Arlene Schnell, a named or designated insured and thereby provide Pitofsky, a resident of Schnell’s household, with uninsured motorist coverage. We affirm upon a finding that Pitofsky failed to satisfy his burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that by reason of fraud, inequitable conduct or mutual mistake, the policy did not express the actual contract intended by the parties. Allstate Insurance Company v. Vanater, 297 So.2d 293 (Fla.1974); Palilla v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, 322 So.2d 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). Compare Napoli v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 364 So.2d 878 (Fla.4th DCA 1978) (holding that clear and convincing proof is not required to prevent the entry of a directed verdict against a plaintiff seeking reformation).

Affirmed.

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

DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.

Pitofsky appeals from a final judgment entered in favor of Liberty Mutual Insurance Company after a non-jury trial. He contends that the trial court erred in refusing to reform an insurance policy issued by Liberty Mutual so as to make Pitofsky’s mother, Arlene Schnell, a named or designated insured and thereby provide Pitofsky, a resident of Schnell’s household, with uninsured motorist coverage. We affirm upon a finding that Pitofsky failed to satisfy his burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that by reason of fraud, inequitable conduct or mutual mistake, the policy did not express the actual contract intended by the parties. Allstate Insurance Company v. Vanater, 297 So.2d 293 (Fla.1974); Palilla v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, 322 So.2d 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). Compare Napoli v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 364 So.2d 878 (Fla.4th DCA 1978) (holding that clear and convincing proof is not required to prevent the entry of a directed verdict against a plaintiff seeking reformation).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

386 So. 2d 1235, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pitofsky-v-liberty-mutual-insurance-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack