Puritan Insurance Co. v. Frank

436 So. 2d 1140, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 22830
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 27, 1983·No. No. 82-2464·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Although Dr. Frank carried his burden of demonstrating his entitlement to coverage under an all risk policy, he nonetheless failed to negate the existence of genuine issues of fact with respect to the insurer’s affirmative defenses of: (a) conversion; and (b) geographical areas of coverage. For this reason, the summary final judgment on coverage is reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Hamilton v. Bank of Palm Beach and Trust Co., 348 So.2d 1190 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).

That portion of the summary judgment determining non-subrogation is vacated to abide the final resolution of the identical problem presently pending in the federal court system. See Wade v. Clower, 94 Fla. 817, 114 So. 548 (1927).

Reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.

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

Puritan Insurance Co. v. Frank, 436 So. 2d 1140, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 22830 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

436 So. 2d 1140 (Puritan Insurance Co. v. Frank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United National Insurance Co. v. I & JC Corp.
927 So. 2d 167 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
Estate of Bacon v. Bacon
573 So. 2d 1035 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
SAC Const. Co. v. EAGLE NAT. BANK OF MIAMI
449 So. 2d 301 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)