Prudential-LMI Commercial Insurance Co. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Prudential-LMI Commercial Insurance Co. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

572 So. 2d 15, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 9639, 1990 WL 212051

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 26, 1990

DocketNo. 90-1146

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 572 So. 2d 15 (Prudential-LMI Commercial Insurance Co. v. Sears, Roebuck & 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

Prudential-LMI Commercial Insurance Co. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 572 So. 2d 15, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 9639, 1990 WL 212051 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Prudential-LMI Commercial appeals an adverse summary judgment absolving Sears of any liability for negligently installing a washing machine that caused a fire at the insured’s property.

There were opinions of experts that the fire was caused by the movement of a gas dryer which caused a break in flexible glass tubings. The issue created by the affidavits of both sides was whether the dryer was moved by the insured's employees or the employees of Sears. Each side accused the other of having moved the machine. The trial court entered a summary judgment for Sears on a finding that “the Plaintiff has presented no evidence establishing SEARS and/or its employees moved the dryer in question.”

The burden is on the party moving for a summary judgment to show conclusively the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Pratt’s Office Supplies, Inc. v. Bird Bowl Invs., 565 So.2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). It was not the burden of the plaintiff here, on the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, to prove that the defendant was negligent.

Reversed and remanded for further appropriate proceedings.

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

PER CURIAM.

Prudential-LMI Commercial appeals an adverse summary judgment absolving Sears of any liability for negligently installing a washing machine that caused a fire at the insured’s property.

There were opinions of experts that the fire was caused by the movement of a gas dryer which caused a break in flexible glass tubings. The issue created by the affidavits of both sides was whether the dryer was moved by the insured's employees or the employees of Sears. Each side accused the other of having moved the machine. The trial court entered a summary judgment for Sears on a finding that “the Plaintiff has presented no evidence establishing SEARS and/or its employees moved the dryer in question.”

The burden is on the party moving for a summary judgment to show conclusively the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Pratt’s Office Supplies, Inc. v. Bird Bowl Invs., 565 So.2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). It was not the burden of the plaintiff here, on the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, to prove that the defendant was negligent.

Reversed and remanded for further appropriate proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

572 So. 2d 15, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 9639, 1990 WL 212051, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prudential-lmi-commercial-insurance-co-v-sears-roebuck-co-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack