Security Insurance Co. of Hartford v. Baad

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Security Insurance Co. of Hartford v. Baad

657 So. 2d 10, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 5038, 1995 WL 271462

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 10, 1995

DocketNo. 94-834

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 657 So. 2d 10 (Security Insurance Co. of Hartford v. Baad) 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

Security Insurance Co. of Hartford v. Baad, 657 So. 2d 10, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 5038, 1995 WL 271462 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Security Insurance Co. of Hartford [Security], appeals from an adverse final summary judgment and from the subsequent denial of its motion for rehearing. We affirm, in part, and reverse, in part.

We affirm that portion of the trial court’s order granting final summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff on the issue of insurance coverage. “The acceptance of an alteration or modification of the original contract, to be effective, must precede the loss.” George J. Couch, Cyclopedia Of Insurance Law, § 65:13 (2 ed. 1983). In the instant case, we find that the retroactive endorsement of an occurrence policy to exclude dog bites was invalid, as a matter of law, where an injury had occurred to a third party prior to the acceptance of the endorsement by the insured. Therefore, the trial court properly found that there was insurance coverage at the time that the plaintiff was injured and granted final summary judgment in her favor.

However, we reverse that portion of the final summary judgment that incorporated the consent judgment entered into between the insured and the plaintiff where a review of the record indicates that there was no [11]*11determination by the trial court as to “whether the settlement was reasonable and made in good faith.” Independent Fire Ins. Co. v. Paulekas, 633 So.2d 1111, 1113-14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (citations omitted).

We find that Security’s remaining points lack merit.

Accordingly, we affirm, in part, reverse, in part, and remand 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.

The defendant, Security Insurance Co. of Hartford [Security], appeals from an adverse final summary judgment and from the subsequent denial of its motion for rehearing. We affirm, in part, and reverse, in part.

We affirm that portion of the trial court’s order granting final summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff on the issue of insurance coverage. “The acceptance of an alteration or modification of the original contract, to be effective, must precede the loss.” George J. Couch, Cyclopedia Of Insurance Law, § 65:13 (2 ed. 1983). In the instant case, we find that the retroactive endorsement of an occurrence policy to exclude dog bites was invalid, as a matter of law, where an injury had occurred to a third party prior to the acceptance of the endorsement by the insured. Therefore, the trial court properly found that there was insurance coverage at the time that the plaintiff was injured and granted final summary judgment in her favor.

However, we reverse that portion of the final summary judgment that incorporated the consent judgment entered into between the insured and the plaintiff where a review of the record indicates that there was no [11]*11determination by the trial court as to “whether the settlement was reasonable and made in good faith.” Independent Fire Ins. Co. v. Paulekas, 633 So.2d 1111, 1113-14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (citations omitted).

We find that Security’s remaining points lack merit.

Accordingly, we affirm, in part, reverse, in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

657 So. 2d 10, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 5038, 1995 WL 271462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/security-insurance-co-of-hartford-v-baad-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack