PMR Construction, Inc. v. Ranger Insurance Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

PMR Construction, Inc. v. Ranger Insurance Co.

587 So. 2d 549, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 9730, 1991 WL 193096

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 1, 1991

DocketNo. 90-955

StatusPublished

This text of 587 So. 2d 549 (PMR Construction, Inc. v. Ranger Insurance 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

PMR Construction, Inc. v. Ranger Insurance Co., 587 So. 2d 549, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 9730, 1991 WL 193096 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

PMR Construction, Inc. [PMR], appeals a final summary judgment in favor of Ranger Insurance Company [Ranger]. We reverse.

In PMR Constr., Inc. v. Ranger Ins. Co., 546 So.2d 1101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), this court reversed a summary judgment in favor of Ranger Insurance Company holding that “the trial court altogether neglected [PMR’s] rights to coverage under the personal injury and property damage [Section II] liability section of the policy. Thus, we reverse and remand for further proceedings on this issue.” Id. PMR contends that our prior opinion established its right to coverage under Section II of the policy. We disagree. Our opinion required the trial court to consider the availability of such coverage. The trial court acted in accordance with our mandate when it considered and correctly determined that no coverage was available under the Phase I policy.

However, the trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of the insurer. We conclude that the question of whether the accident occurred on “the ways immediately adjoining such [insured] premises on land” entitling PMR to coverage under the policies for Phases II and III, remains to be determined by the trier of fact. Thus, summary judgment was improper. Moore v. Morris, 475 So.2d 666 (Fla.1985); see Harvard Farms, Inc. v. National Casualty Co., 555 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 564 So.2d 1086 (FIa.1990).

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

PMR Construction, Inc. [PMR], appeals a final summary judgment in favor of Ranger Insurance Company [Ranger]. We reverse.

In PMR Constr., Inc. v. Ranger Ins. Co., 546 So.2d 1101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), this court reversed a summary judgment in favor of Ranger Insurance Company holding that “the trial court altogether neglected [PMR’s] rights to coverage under the personal injury and property damage [Section II] liability section of the policy. Thus, we reverse and remand for further proceedings on this issue.” Id. PMR contends that our prior opinion established its right to coverage under Section II of the policy. We disagree. Our opinion required the trial court to consider the availability of such coverage. The trial court acted in accordance with our mandate when it considered and correctly determined that no coverage was available under the Phase I policy.

However, the trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of the insurer. We conclude that the question of whether the accident occurred on “the ways immediately adjoining such [insured] premises on land” entitling PMR to coverage under the policies for Phases II and III, remains to be determined by the trier of fact. Thus, summary judgment was improper. Moore v. Morris, 475 So.2d 666 (Fla.1985); see Harvard Farms, Inc. v. National Casualty Co., 555 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 564 So.2d 1086 (FIa.1990).

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

587 So. 2d 549, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 9730, 1991 WL 193096, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pmr-construction-inc-v-ranger-insurance-co-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack