Sussex Mutual Insurance Co. v. Gabor

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sussex Mutual Insurance Co. v. Gabor

568 So. 2d 1004, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 8295, 1990 WL 164825

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 30, 1990

DocketNos. 89-1612, 89-2337

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 568 So. 2d 1004 (Sussex Mutual Insurance Co. v. Gabor) 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

Sussex Mutual Insurance Co. v. Gabor, 568 So. 2d 1004, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 8295, 1990 WL 164825 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff Sussex Mutual Insurance Co. from an adverse summary judgment entered below in an action sounding in fraud, civil theft and related claims. We affirm the final summary judgment under review because, (1) on this record, it is clear that the plaintiff suffered no damages on its fraud and related claims, (2) the civil theft count was properly dismissed with prejudice because ⅛ fails to allege, and could not in good faith allege, that the plaintiff had a property interest in the “book of business” allegedly stolen by the defendants, and (3) no abuse of discretion has been shown in the award of costs below. See Casey v. Welch, 50 So.2d 124 (Fla.1951); R.C. v. State, 481 So.2d 14, 15 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Vote, 463 So.2d 459 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Greater Coral Springs Realty, Inc. v. Century 21 Real Estate of S. Fla. Inc., 412 So.2d 940, 941 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). This being so, the cross appeal filed herein is moot.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff Sussex Mutual Insurance Co. from an adverse summary judgment entered below in an action sounding in fraud, civil theft and related claims. We affirm the final summary judgment under review because, (1) on this record, it is clear that the plaintiff suffered no damages on its fraud and related claims, (2) the civil theft count was properly dismissed with prejudice because ⅛ fails to allege, and could not in good faith allege, that the plaintiff had a property interest in the “book of business” allegedly stolen by the defendants, and (3) no abuse of discretion has been shown in the award of costs below. See Casey v. Welch, 50 So.2d 124 (Fla.1951); R.C. v. State, 481 So.2d 14, 15 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Vote, 463 So.2d 459 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Greater Coral Springs Realty, Inc. v. Century 21 Real Estate of S. Fla. Inc., 412 So.2d 940, 941 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). This being so, the cross appeal filed herein is moot.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

568 So. 2d 1004, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 8295, 1990 WL 164825, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sussex-mutual-insurance-co-v-gabor-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack