Sena v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.
This text of 305 So. 2d 243 (Sena v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.) 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.
Opinion
Carmen Marimon SENA et al., Appellants,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Foreign Corporation, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Horton, Perse & Ginsberg, Rabin, Sasson & Ratiner, Miami, for appellants.
Kuvin, Klingensmith & Coon and R. Fred Lewis, Coconut Grove, for appellee.
Before PEARSON and NATHAN, JJ., and GREEN, ROBERT A., Jr., Associate Judge.
NATHAN, Judge.
The plaintiffs appeal an adverse summary final judgment in favor of the defendant.
We find the decisive issue in the case to be whether an insured is entitled to uninsured motorist benefits under his insurance policy, when he has entered into a settlement with, and executes a release in favor of a person who may be liable for the insured's injuries, in violation of the terms of the policy including the insured's right of subrogation. Florida cases clearly answer this question in the negative. See Oren v. General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corporation, Fla.App. 1965, 175 So.2d 581; Phoenix Insurance Company v. Bowen, Fla.App. 1965, 178 So.2d 751; American Fidelity Fire Insurance Company v. Richardson, Fla.App. 1966, 189 So.2d 486.
*244 The appellants rely on the case of Kaplan v. Phoenix of Hartford Insurance Company, Fla.App. 1968, 215 So.2d 893, to urge the proposition that summary final judgment should not be entered where it is shown that the settlement agreement has not prejudiced the insurer. However, there being no indication in the record that the issue of prejudice was brought before the trial court, this court is now unable to entertain the matter for the first time on appeal. Alliance For Conservation of Natural Resources in Pinellas County v. Furen, Fla.App. 1960, 122 So.2d 51, 65.
Therefore, for the reasons stated and upon the authorities cited, the order is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
305 So. 2d 243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sena-v-state-farm-mutual-automobile-ins-co-fladistctapp-1974.