U.S. Security Insurance Co. v. Levites

District Court of Appeal of Florida

U.S. Security Insurance Co. v. Levites

625 So. 2d 1232, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 8379

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 11, 1993

DocketNos. 92-2135, 92-2861

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 625 So. 2d 1232 (U.S. Security Insurance Co. v. Levites) 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

U.S. Security Insurance Co. v. Levites, 625 So. 2d 1232, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 8379 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the summary final judgment on the authority of Abrams v. General Insurance Co., Inc., 508 So.2d 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). We agree with appellant that the trial court erred in summarily deciding that the appellee-insureds did not make a material misrepresentation in their application for insurance by failing to disclose that their teenage daughter would be driving one of the insured vehicles. Based upon the conflicting evidence in the record before us, we conclude [1233]*1233that there is a disputed issue of fact as to the alleged misrepresentation that cannot be properly resolved by summary judgment.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings in accord herewith.

ANSTEAD and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., and BIRKEN, ARTHUR M., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the summary final judgment on the authority of Abrams v. General Insurance Co., Inc., 508 So.2d 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). We agree with appellant that the trial court erred in summarily deciding that the appellee-insureds did not make a material misrepresentation in their application for insurance by failing to disclose that their teenage daughter would be driving one of the insured vehicles. Based upon the conflicting evidence in the record before us, we conclude [1233]*1233that there is a disputed issue of fact as to the alleged misrepresentation that cannot be properly resolved by summary judgment.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings in accord herewith.

ANSTEAD and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., and BIRKEN, ARTHUR M., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

625 So. 2d 1232, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 8379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/us-security-insurance-co-v-levites-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack