Valdes v. Association I.N.E.D., H.M.O., Inc.

667 So. 2d 856, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 384, 1996 WL 22715
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJanuary 24, 1996
DocketNo. 94-2421
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 667 So. 2d 856 (Valdes v. Association I.N.E.D., H.M.O., Inc.) 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
Valdes v. Association I.N.E.D., H.M.O., Inc., 667 So. 2d 856, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 384, 1996 WL 22715 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the entry of final judgment in favor of appellee, the defendant below, pursuant to an involuntary dismissal,1 granted at the close of appellants’ case in chief in a nonjury trial for the alleged breach of a health insurance contract. Florida law is clear that a motion for involuntary dismiss[857]*857al made by the defendant must be denied if the plaintiff has presented competent, substantial evidence (even though conflicting) that, when considered in a light most favorable to plaintiff, establishes a prima facie case. Tillman v. Baskin, 260 So.2d 509, 511-12 (Fla.1972); Wygodny v. K-Site 600 Assocs., 644 So.2d 579, 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Capital Media, Inc. v. Haase, 639 So.2d 632, 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Foster v. City of Gainesville, 579 So.2d 774, 776 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Saporito v. Madras, 576 So.2d 1342, 1345 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). At this stage of the proceedings, the trial judge, even though the ultimate trier of fact, is precluded from weighing the evidence or adjudging its credibility. E.g., Wygodny, 644 So.2d at 581.

Our review of the competent, substantial evidence adduced by appellants in their ease in chief reveals that it sufficiently made a prima facie showing of the existence of a contract for insurance; the breach thereof by appellee and resulting damages by appellants. Where such a prima facie showing was made, the trial court was thus precluded from weighing such evidence and/or adjudging its credibility to enter an involuntary dismissal in favor of appellee. Consequently, the entry of the involuntary dismissal and the final judgment entered pursuant to this dismissal constitute reversible error.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

RAMLE INTERNATIONAL CORP. v. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2023
Cozzo v. Cozzo
186 So. 3d 1054 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
Mills v. Mills
140 So. 3d 1145 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)
Bennett v. Wells
55 So. 3d 666 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
Crowe v. Crowe
763 So. 2d 1183 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
Teller v. Richert
744 So. 2d 1230 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
667 So. 2d 856, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 384, 1996 WL 22715, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valdes-v-association-ined-hmo-inc-fladistctapp-1996.