ALFONSO SOCICERO, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
NATIONAL UNION COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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.
Fire insurance policyholder Socicero challenged the insurer's defense that his policy was void because he lacked unconditional and sole ownership of the insured property. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the lower court's judgment, holding that the insurer's plea was insufficient because it failed to negate the possibility that Socicero held an unconditional and sole equitable estate despite joint legal title with his wife.
The plea is insufficient because it contains merely conclusory language and fails to negate the possibility that the insured holds an unconditional and sole equitable estate in the property. An insured satisfies the requirement of sole and unconditional ownership if he is the sole equitable owner with full equitable title, even if legal title is held jointly; therefore, the plea must specifically negative such an equitable interest to be valid.
“To be 'unconditional and sole' the interest or 'ownership' of the insured must be completely vested, not contingent or conditional, nor in common or jointly with others, but of such nature that the insured must alone sustain the entire loss if the property is destroyed; and this is so whether the title is legal or equitable.”
Establishes the substantive standard for what constitutes unconditional and sole ownership under insurance policies—it must be complete, not contingent, and the insured must bear the entire loss.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSocicero brought an action on a fire insurance policy covering a building. The policy contained a provision voiding coverage if the insured's interest…
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 Breach Of Fire Insurance Policy cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, P. J.
Action was brought on a fire insurance policy covering a building and containing a provision that the policy shall be void “if the interest of the insured be other than unconditional and sole ownership.” A pLea avers that “the interest of Alfonso Socicero, plaintiff, in the premises insured was other than unconditional and sole ownership, in that the said Alfonso Socicero was not the sole owner of the premises at the said time, that the title .of property was vested in plaintiff and his wife.” A demurrer to the plea was overruled and the plaintiff, not desiring to plead further, judgment for defendant was rendered and writ of error taken.
The averment of the plea, that the interest of the plaintiff in the premises insured was other than unconditional and sole ownership, is a mere conclusion and is not admitted by the demurrer and is not the necessary result of the averment that the plaintiff “was not the sole owner of the premises, that the title of property was vested in plaintiff and his wife. ’ ’
To be “unconditional and sole” the interest or “ownership ’ ’ of the insured must be completely vested, not contingent or conditional, nor in common or jointly with others, but of such nature that the insured must alone sustain the entire loss if the property is destroyed; and this is so whether the title is legal or equitable. Phenix Ins. Co. v. Hilliard, 59 Fla. 590, Text 591, 52 South, Rep. 799.
It is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of “sole and unconditional ownership” in insurance policies that the insured is sole equitable owner and has the full equitable title. Turner v. Home Ins. Co., 195 Mo. App. 136, 189 S. W. Rep. 626.
There may be an unconditional and sole ownership by the husband of an equitable estate in the property even though the legal title be in the husband and wife; and if so this would make the husband the unconditional and sole owner of the property within the meaning of the quoted provision of the policy. The plea does not negative such an equitable estate in the plaintiff and is thereupon insufficient.
Reversed.
Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Brown, C. J., and Ellis and Strum, J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Blumberg v. Am. Fire & Cas. Co., 51 So.2d 182 (Fla. 1951)
Authorities Cited
- Phenix Ins. Co. v. Hilliard, 59 Fla. 590 (Fla. 1910)