MONARCH INSURANCE COMPANY OF OHIO, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
ARTHUR OKEY AND BOBBY OKEY, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Appellate court reversed summary judgment for insured on fire insurance claim where circumstantial evidence of arson and potential policyholder involvement created genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment.
Summary judgment for the insured on a fire insurance claim must be reversed when circumstantial evidence of arson, over-insurance, financial distress, and suspicious timing creates genuine issues of material fact.
[1] Summary judgment is inappropriate in an insurance dispute when circumstantial evidence of arson, over-insurance, financial motive, and suspicious circumstances creates ge…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff's home was destroyed by fire while plaintiff was on vacation; the home had been recently over-insured, a family member was seen at the home …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fire Insurance Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
BERANEK, Judge.
This is an interlocutory appeal from a summary judgment of liability in favor of the plaintiff. Plaintiff sued the defendant on a fire insurance policy. The trial court granted summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor and defendant appeals. We reverse.
There was abundant circumstantial evidence that the plaintiff had recently over-insured the residence which was destroyed by fire when plaintiff was away on vacation. A member of plaintiff’s family was seen at the home immediately before the fire. It is agreed by all that the fire was the result of arson. Gas and oil cans were located in the home, and the Fire Department Inspectors were of the opinion that the fire had been started by the pouring of these substances on the walls. The family member at the scene was driving a truck and a gas can was found in the back of the truck immediately after the fire. There was circumstantial evidence that the family member was instrumental in starting the fire. Plaintiff was in dire financial straights, the home had been recently insured, and the circumstances of the plaintiff’s absence on vacation appeared contrived. Under all of these circumstances, there was at least an inference which prevented summary judgment. Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966). Summary judgment below is reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
DOWNEY, C. J., concurs.
ANSTEAD, J., concurs in conclusion only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Okey v. Monarch Ins. Co. OF Ohio, Inc., 392 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…urth District Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment for the Okeys, holding that there existed sufficient circumstantial evidence of the Okeys’ connection with the arson to present a jury question. Monarch Insurance Co. of Ohio, Inc. v. Okey, 370 So. 2d 1153 (Fla.4th DCA 1978). Upon remand, trial was limited to the question of liability. The Okeys stipulated that the fire was the result of arson, so the only issue to be tried was the Okeys’ connection, if any, to the arson. This trial resulted in a ver…
Authorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)