Tinkler v. Allstate Insurance

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tinkler v. Allstate Insurance

693 So. 2d 646, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4177, 1997 WL 194806

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 23, 1997

DocketNo. 96-2290

StatusPublished

This text of 693 So. 2d 646 (Tinkler v. Allstate Insurance) 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

Tinkler v. Allstate Insurance, 693 So. 2d 646, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4177, 1997 WL 194806 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Mark and Dominique Tinkler appeal from an order of final summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, we reverse.

The Tinklers sought insurance benefits under their Allstate automobile policy for damages arising from an automobile accident. Allstate denied coverage. The Tinklers then filed a declaratory judgment action against Allstate, seeking a determination of coverage. Allstate denied coverage and moved for summary judgment on the ground that it had cancelled the policy. The trial court granted Allstate’s motion, finding no coverage, and in doing so, erred.

The record falls far short of establishing that Allstate complied with section 627.728, Florida Statutes (1995), regarding timely notice of cancellation.¹ In addition, genuine issues of material fact remain regarding the Tinklers’ claims of waiver and estoppel, further precluding the entry of summary judgment.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

Mark and Dominique Tinkler appeal from an order of final summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, we reverse.

The Tinklers sought insurance benefits under their Allstate automobile policy for damages arising from an automobile accident. Allstate denied coverage. The Tinklers then filed a declaratory judgment action against Allstate, seeking a determination of coverage. Allstate denied coverage and moved for summary judgment on the ground that it had cancelled the policy. The trial court granted Allstate’s motion, finding no coverage, and in doing so, erred.

The record falls far short of establishing that Allstate complied with section 627.728, Florida Statutes (1995), regarding timely notice of cancellation.¹ In addition, genuine issues of material fact remain regarding the Tinklers’ claims of waiver and estoppel, further precluding the entry of summary judgment.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

693 So. 2d 646, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 4177, 1997 WL 194806, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tinkler-v-allstate-insurance-fladistctapp-1997.