MOTOR CLUB OF AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
SANFORD LANDA, DOROTHY LANDA, AND ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
The court held that the appellant failed to preserve the issue of whether Florida law should apply to the uninsured motorist coverage stacking by not making a proper objection at trial.
The appellant insurance company appealed a declaratory judgment regarding uninsured motorist coverage. The trial court applied New Jersey law to allow…
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 Anti-Stacking Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
BERANEK, Judge.
This is an appeal by plaintiff, Motor Club of America Insurance Company, from a final declaratory judgment finding that the appellant carrier had uninsured motorist insurance coverage of $100,000. Various other coverage issues between other parties were also determined, but we need not consider these points. We affirm.
The issue at the non-jury trial concerned the stacking of appellant’s uninsured motorist insurance policy. Plaintiff/appellant relied upon the anti-stacking statute, Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (1979), effective October 1,1976. The policy in question was issued after the statute’s effective date. After plaintiff rested, the policyholder presented evidence and introduced New Jersey law on the issue of uninsured motorist insurance coverage stacking. The trial court found Florida law inapplicable and allowed stacking based on New Jersey law. The policy and the parties had various contacts with the State of New Jersey which we need not explore in detail.
Appellant contends Florida law would have produced a different result and that the court erred in applying New Jersey law. Appellee contends that no proper objection was made to New Jersey law; therefore, even if the court erred in allowing New Jersey law in evidence, the issue was not preserved for appeal.
We have searched the record and carefully read the transcript and find no objection sufficient to allow our consideration of the issue. The error, if any, was simply unob-jected to. Holmes v. School Board of Orange County, 301 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974), cert. denied 312 So. 2d 755 (Fla.1975). Indeed, appellant’s counsel’s comments indicate his acquiescence in the trial court’s consideration of New Jersey law. Nelson v. Reliance Insurance Company, 368 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).
The judgment is hereby affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
GLICKSTEIN, J., and SIMONS, STUART M., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Yoder v. Venancio A. Adriatico, 459 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…being pursued in the same action as the counterclaim by reason of the failure to timely raise any such objection at the trial level. The Adriaticos assert that this was an error invited by the Yoders, citing Motor Club of America Ins. Co. v. Landa, 388 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), and Behar v. Southeast Banks Trust Co., N.A., 374 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), review denied, 379 So. 2d 202 (Fla.1980). While it is true that the erroneous jury instruction as to the definition of the tort of abuse of proces…
Authorities Cited
- Maynard Nelson and Myrtle Nelson v. Reliance Ins. Co., 368 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Holmes v. The Sch. Bd. OF Orange Cnty., 301 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Alphonso A. Dozier v. State, 312 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 1975)