State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Ferro

581 So. 2d 605, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4565, 1991 WL 80038
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMay 15, 1991
DocketNo. 90-02527
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 581 So. 2d 605 (State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Ferro) 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
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Ferro, 581 So. 2d 605, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4565, 1991 WL 80038 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, challenges the final judgments entered against it and in favor of the appellees, Marlene Ferro and John Ferro. We reverse.

The appellees filed a negligence action against two tort-feasors for injuries resulting from an automobile accident occurring [606]*606in 1986. The appellant was named as a party defendant because it provided uninsured/underinsured coverage to the appel-lees. A verdict was returned against the two tort-feasors in an amount less than the primary insurance coverage provided to the tort-feasors. The trial court entered final judgments in favor of each of the appellees against the tort-feasors and the appellant, jointly and severally. The court reserved jurisdiction to award costs. This timely appeal followed.

We agree with the appellant’s contention that once it was established that the appel-lees’ damages were less than the policy limits of the tort-feasors’ primary insurance coverage, and this is uncontested, it was also established that the appellant had no liability to the appellees. The trial court at that point should have entered a judgment for the appellant, and it erred by failing to do so. See Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Brewton, 538 So.2d 1375 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). We, accordingly, reverse and remand for the entry of judgments in favor of the appellant.

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

SCHOONOVER, C.J., and PARKER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Tursom v. United States
S.D. Florida, 2021
Neff v. Property & Casualty Insurance Co. of Hartford
133 So. 3d 530 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2013)
Allstate Insurance Co. v. Staszower
61 So. 3d 1245 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
Allstate Insurance Co. v. Williams
826 So. 2d 1017 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS. CO. v. Moher
734 So. 2d 1088 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Marko
695 So. 2d 874 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
581 So. 2d 605, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4565, 1991 WL 80038, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-co-v-ferro-fladistctapp-1991.