Satuloff v. American Reliance Insurance

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Satuloff v. American Reliance Insurance

700 So. 2d 421, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 11121, 1997 WL 600307

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 1, 1997

DocketNo. 96-2366

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 700 So. 2d 421 (Satuloff v. American Reliance Insurance) 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

Satuloff v. American Reliance Insurance, 700 So. 2d 421, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 11121, 1997 WL 600307 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Barth Satuloff, the plaintiff in a suit for breach of an insurance contract, appeals from a final order' granting American Reliance Insurance Company’s motion for summary judgment. We reverse.

Satuloff, a certified public accountant, purchased business owner’s insurance through American Reliance. On October 23, 1991, his computers and printers were stolen. Satu-loff submitted claims to American Reliance for the cost of replacing the stolen equipment, the loss of “business income,” and the cost of data restoration. The claim for the stolen equipment was paid; American Reb-anee now concedes that it also owes Satuloff a fixed amount of $4,272.75 for data restoration.¹ The remaining claim for business interruption damages is in dispute.

As a matter of law, Satuloff has estab-bshed his right to recover business interruption damages. See American Medical Imaging Corp. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 949 F.2d 690 (3d Cir.1991); Eisenson v. Home Ins. Co., 84 F.Supp. 41 (N.D.Fla.1949), aff'd, 181 F.2d 416 (5th Cir.1950). However, factual issues remain as to the amount due for the business interruption Satuloff experienced. Under these circumstances, the trial court inappropriately granted summary judgment. See Moore v. Morris, 475 So.2d 666, 668 (Fla.1985) (noting that summary judgment is inappropriate “unless the facts are so crystallized” that only questions of law remain); Chittenden v. Florida Power & Light Co., 600 So.2d 571 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (holding that summary judgment is inappropriate where genuine issues of material fact remain).

We therefore reverse and remand only for the purpose of determining the amount of damages to which Satuloff is entitled for his business interruption claim.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

Barth Satuloff, the plaintiff in a suit for breach of an insurance contract, appeals from a final order' granting American Reliance Insurance Company’s motion for summary judgment. We reverse.

Satuloff, a certified public accountant, purchased business owner’s insurance through American Reliance. On October 23, 1991, his computers and printers were stolen. Satu-loff submitted claims to American Reliance for the cost of replacing the stolen equipment, the loss of “business income,” and the cost of data restoration. The claim for the stolen equipment was paid; American Reb-anee now concedes that it also owes Satuloff a fixed amount of $4,272.75 for data restoration.¹ The remaining claim for business interruption damages is in dispute.

As a matter of law, Satuloff has estab-bshed his right to recover business interruption damages. See American Medical Imaging Corp. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 949 F.2d 690 (3d Cir.1991); Eisenson v. Home Ins. Co., 84 F.Supp. 41 (N.D.Fla.1949), aff'd, 181 F.2d 416 (5th Cir.1950). However, factual issues remain as to the amount due for the business interruption Satuloff experienced. Under these circumstances, the trial court inappropriately granted summary judgment. See Moore v. Morris, 475 So.2d 666, 668 (Fla.1985) (noting that summary judgment is inappropriate “unless the facts are so crystallized” that only questions of law remain); Chittenden v. Florida Power & Light Co., 600 So.2d 571 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (holding that summary judgment is inappropriate where genuine issues of material fact remain).

We therefore reverse and remand only for the purpose of determining the amount of damages to which Satuloff is entitled for his business interruption claim.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

700 So. 2d 421, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 11121, 1997 WL 600307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/satuloff-v-american-reliance-insurance-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack