Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Lambert

Supreme Court of Florida

Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Lambert

444 So. 2d 8, 1983 Fla. LEXIS 3153

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedDecember 8, 1983

DocketNo. 63396

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 444 So. 2d 8 (Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Lambert) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Lambert, 444 So. 2d 8, 1983 Fla. LEXIS 3153 (Fla. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

OVERTON, Justice.

This is a petition to review a decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal reported as Lambert v. Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance Co., 426 So.2d 1194 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). We find direct conflict with Vetter v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 423 So.2d 991 (Fla.3d DCA 1982); Allstate Insurance Co. v. Alvarez, 414 So.2d 224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Indomenico v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 388 So.2d 29 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Wimpee, 376 So.2d 20 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 385 So.2d 762 (Fla.1980); and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Kuhn, 374 So.2d 1079 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 383 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

We have resolved this conflict in our decision in New Hampshire Insurance Group v. Harbach, 439 So.2d 1383 (Fla. 1983). For the reasons expressed in that decision, we quash that part of the district court’s decision in the instant case which reversed the final summary judgment finding that Prudential did not afford uninsured motorist coverage to respondent.

It is so ordered.

ALDERMAN, C.J., and BOYD, MCDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur. ADKINS, J., dissents.

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

OVERTON, Justice.

This is a petition to review a decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal reported as Lambert v. Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance Co., 426 So.2d 1194 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). We find direct conflict with Vetter v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 423 So.2d 991 (Fla.3d DCA 1982); Allstate Insurance Co. v. Alvarez, 414 So.2d 224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Indomenico v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 388 So.2d 29 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Wimpee, 376 So.2d 20 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 385 So.2d 762 (Fla.1980); and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Kuhn, 374 So.2d 1079 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 383 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

We have resolved this conflict in our decision in New Hampshire Insurance Group v. Harbach, 439 So.2d 1383 (Fla. 1983). For the reasons expressed in that decision, we quash that part of the district court’s decision in the instant case which reversed the final summary judgment finding that Prudential did not afford uninsured motorist coverage to respondent.

It is so ordered.

ALDERMAN, C.J., and BOYD, MCDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur. ADKINS, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

444 So. 2d 8, 1983 Fla. LEXIS 3153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prudential-property-casualty-insurance-co-v-lambert-fla-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack