Rosenberg v. Continental Assurance Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rosenberg v. Continental Assurance Co.

342 So. 2d 849, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15327

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 22, 1977·No. No. 75-2033·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff, Esther C. Rosenberg, from a summary final judgment in favor of the defendants, Continental Assurance Company and Charles 0. Finley Company, Inc., in an action to recover benefits under a group insurance policy which allegedly insured the life of Dr. Harold Arthur Rosenberg, plaintiff’s deceased husband. Plaintiff’s complaint was based on breach of contract, declaratory relief and negligence.

Upon consideration of the record on appeal, the briefs and arguments of counsel, we have determined that the plaintiff has conclusively established that there are material issues of fact to be determined by the trier of fact, and that the defendants were not entitled to a summary judgment as a matter of law. Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966); Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Stuckey, 220 So.2d 421 (Fla. 4th DC A 1969); Stringfellow v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 295 So.2d 686 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974).

Therefore, the summary final judgment is reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff, Esther C. Rosenberg, from a summary final judgment in favor of the defendants, Continental Assurance Company and Charles 0. Finley Company, Inc., in an action to recover benefits under a group insurance policy which allegedly insured the life of Dr. Harold Arthur Rosenberg, plaintiff’s deceased husband. Plaintiff’s complaint was based on breach of contract, declaratory relief and negligence.

Upon consideration of the record on appeal, the briefs and arguments of counsel, we have determined that the plaintiff has conclusively established that there are material issues of fact to be determined by the trier of fact, and that the defendants were not entitled to a summary judgment as a matter of law. Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966); Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Stuckey, 220 So.2d 421 (Fla. 4th DC A 1969); Stringfellow v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 295 So.2d 686 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974).

Therefore, the summary final judgment is reversed.

Rosenberg v. Continental Assurance Co., 342 So. 2d 849, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15327 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

342 So. 2d 849 (Rosenberg v. Continental Assurance Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related