State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Ware

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Ware

159 So. 2d 262

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 7, 1964

DocketNo. 63-265

StatusPublished

This text of 159 So. 2d 262 (State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Ware) 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 v. Ware, 159 So. 2d 262 (Fla. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

BARKDULL, Chief Judge.

The appellant, a garnishee after judgment, seeks review of a summary final judgment in garnishment rendered in favor of the plaintiff in the original proceeding.

The appellee, Ware, sought recovery for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident occasioned by a rear-end collision. She secured a judgment for compensatory damages against the appellee, Isbell, and sought garnishment against the appellant’as the insurance carrier of Isbell. The carrier defended on the ground of failure to cooperate on the part of its insured [Isbell].

From the stipulated set of facts adduced at the pre-trial conference, the trial judge was warranted in entering a summary final judgment on behalf of the third party judgment creditor, as the facts [viewed in the light most favorable to the carrier] failed to disclose non-cooperation on the part of the assured [Isbell] which would have denied a recovery by the judgment creditor.

Judgment affirmed.

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

BARKDULL, Chief Judge.

The appellant, a garnishee after judgment, seeks review of a summary final judgment in garnishment rendered in favor of the plaintiff in the original proceeding.

The appellee, Ware, sought recovery for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident occasioned by a rear-end collision. She secured a judgment for compensatory damages against the appellee, Isbell, and sought garnishment against the appellant’as the insurance carrier of Isbell. The carrier defended on the ground of failure to cooperate on the part of its insured [Isbell].

From the stipulated set of facts adduced at the pre-trial conference, the trial judge was warranted in entering a summary final judgment on behalf of the third party judgment creditor, as the facts [viewed in the light most favorable to the carrier] failed to disclose non-cooperation on the part of the assured [Isbell] which would have denied a recovery by the judgment creditor.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 So. 2d 262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-v-ware-fladistctapp-1964.