Wheeland v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wheeland v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

668 So. 2d 337, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1529, 1996 WL 72335

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 21, 1996

DocketNo. 95-599

StatusPublished

This text of 668 So. 2d 337 (Wheeland v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.) 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

Wheeland v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 668 So. 2d 337, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1529, 1996 WL 72335 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In the instant case, even though there is admittedly no insurance coverage under the policy, the appellant attempts to recover from State Farm under a theory of coverage by estoppel. The general rule is that the doctrine of estoppel does not operate to create coverage where coverage does not exist. Doe v. Allstate Ins. Co., 653 So.2d 371 (Fla.1995); AIU Ins. Co. v. Block Marina Inv., Inc., 544 So.2d 998 (Fla.1989); Crown Life Ins. Co. v. McBride, 517 So.2d 660 (Fla.1987); Cigarette Racing Team, Inc. v. Parliament Ins. Co., 395 So.2d 1238 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Burns v. Consolidated Am. Ins. Co., 359 So.2d 1203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Six L’s Packing Co., Inc. v. Florida Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 268 So.2d 560, 563 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972), adopted by, 276 So.2d 37 (Fla.1973). There are “narrow exceptions” to this general rule. However, the exceptions are not applicable in the instant ease. See Doe, 653 So.2d at 373-74; Crown Life Ins., 517 So.2d at 661-62. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order granting final summary judgment.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

In the instant case, even though there is admittedly no insurance coverage under the policy, the appellant attempts to recover from State Farm under a theory of coverage by estoppel. The general rule is that the doctrine of estoppel does not operate to create coverage where coverage does not exist. Doe v. Allstate Ins. Co., 653 So.2d 371 (Fla.1995); AIU Ins. Co. v. Block Marina Inv., Inc., 544 So.2d 998 (Fla.1989); Crown Life Ins. Co. v. McBride, 517 So.2d 660 (Fla.1987); Cigarette Racing Team, Inc. v. Parliament Ins. Co., 395 So.2d 1238 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Burns v. Consolidated Am. Ins. Co., 359 So.2d 1203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Six L’s Packing Co., Inc. v. Florida Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 268 So.2d 560, 563 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972), adopted by, 276 So.2d 37 (Fla.1973). There are “narrow exceptions” to this general rule. However, the exceptions are not applicable in the instant ease. See Doe, 653 So.2d at 373-74; Crown Life Ins., 517 So.2d at 661-62. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order granting final summary judgment.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

668 So. 2d 337, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1529, 1996 WL 72335, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wheeland-v-state-farm-fire-casualty-co-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack