United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Blum

District Court of Appeal of Florida

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Blum

513 So. 2d 1387, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2488, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10720

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 27, 1987

DocketNo. 87-565

StatusPublished

This text of 513 So. 2d 1387 (United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Blum) 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

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Blum, 513 So. 2d 1387, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2488, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10720 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company (USF & G) appeals a summary judgment entered in favor of the movant, appellee Harvey Blum, in a declaratory judgment action. The action brought by appellee Blum sought a declaration as to the amount of Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits to which he was entitled under an automobile insurance policy issued to him by appellant. USF & G took the position that Blum was insured by it for $10,000 in PIP benefits, not $100,000, as claimed by Blum. The trial court held that Blum was entitled to PIP benefits in the amount sued for, less the $10,000 in benefits already paid to Blum by USF & G.

Because the record on appeal reveals that there exist genuine issues of material fact which have not been eliminated by the movant, we reverse the summary judgment and remand the cause for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company (USF & G) appeals a summary judgment entered in favor of the movant, appellee Harvey Blum, in a declaratory judgment action. The action brought by appellee Blum sought a declaration as to the amount of Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits to which he was entitled under an automobile insurance policy issued to him by appellant. USF & G took the position that Blum was insured by it for $10,000 in PIP benefits, not $100,000, as claimed by Blum. The trial court held that Blum was entitled to PIP benefits in the amount sued for, less the $10,000 in benefits already paid to Blum by USF & G.

Because the record on appeal reveals that there exist genuine issues of material fact which have not been eliminated by the movant, we reverse the summary judgment and remand the cause for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

513 So. 2d 1387, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2488, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-fidelity-guaranty-co-v-blum-fladistctapp-1987.