Southern American Fire Insurance Co. v. Kaufman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Southern American Fire Insurance Co. v. Kaufman

234 So. 2d 160, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6494

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 3, 1970

DocketNo. 69-600

StatusPublished

This text of 234 So. 2d 160 (Southern American Fire Insurance Co. v. Kaufman) 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

Southern American Fire Insurance Co. v. Kaufman, 234 So. 2d 160, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6494 (Fla. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellees received a jury verdict in their action against the appellant. The action was upon an insurance policy for water damage to the contents of appellees’ apartment. Final judgment was entered and this appeal followed. We affirm.

The first point presented questions the sufficiency of the evidence of damages. The expert opinion evidence as to the damages was sufficient to establish a prima facie case. See National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Cone, 80 Fla. 265, 85 So. 913 (1920). See also annotation at 12 A.L.R.2d 902, 937 (1950). The remaining point urges that the court should have granted appellant’s motion for a new trial because of the court’s refusal of defendant-appellant’s requested instruction upon its affirmative defense claiming lack of cooperation by the appellees in adjusting the loss. Without examining the validity of the defense, we have examined the trial record and agree with the trial court that the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant-appellant did not present the issue. Therefore there was no error in refusing the instruction. See Rodriquez v. Haller, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 519.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellees received a jury verdict in their action against the appellant. The action was upon an insurance policy for water damage to the contents of appellees’ apartment. Final judgment was entered and this appeal followed. We affirm.

The first point presented questions the sufficiency of the evidence of damages. The expert opinion evidence as to the damages was sufficient to establish a prima facie case. See National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Cone, 80 Fla. 265, 85 So. 913 (1920). See also annotation at 12 A.L.R.2d 902, 937 (1950). The remaining point urges that the court should have granted appellant’s motion for a new trial because of the court’s refusal of defendant-appellant’s requested instruction upon its affirmative defense claiming lack of cooperation by the appellees in adjusting the loss. Without examining the validity of the defense, we have examined the trial record and agree with the trial court that the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant-appellant did not present the issue. Therefore there was no error in refusing the instruction. See Rodriquez v. Haller, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 519.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 So. 2d 160, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-american-fire-insurance-co-v-kaufman-fladistctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack