CLARENCE BROCKINGTON
v.
CENTRAL LIFE INSURANCE CO.
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.
Brockington sued Central Life Insurance Co. for conversion of an insurance policy worth $250. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendant, and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed, finding no evidence that the defendant wrongfully retained possession of the policy after receiving it from the plaintiff.
There was no error in directing a verdict for the defendant because there was absolutely no evidence in the record that the defendant wrongfully retained possession of the insurance policy after it was delivered by the plaintiff.
“There is absolutely no evidence in the record that the defendant wrongfully retained possession of the insurance policy referred to in the declaration after the same was delivered to the defendant by the plaintiff.”
This statement establishes the court's rationale for affirming the directed verdict—the absence of evidence on the critical element of wrongful retention in a conversion claim.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrockington brought suit against Central Life Insurance Co. in two counts alleging conversion of an insurance policy valued at $250 and seeking puniti…
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 Conversion Of Property cases and more on FLexlaw
In this case writ of error brings for review judgment in favor of the defendant in the court below in a suit wherein the declaration was. in two counts. The first count was for conversion of an insurance policy of the alleged value of $250.00. The second count was for conversion and for punitive damages incident to such conversion.
Demurrer and motion to strike were interposed to both counts of the declaration and both were overruled.
Thereafter a number of pleas were filed to each count of the declaration. All of the pleas went down on demurrer except the first, eleventh and fourteenth.
The first plea was: “For a first plea to said second amended declaration, this defendant denies that the plaintiff is the owner of the policy described in the declaration.”
The eleventh plea was: “And for an eleventh plea to said declaration this defendant says it is not guilty.”
*251The fourteenth plea was: “For an additional plea to the first count of said second amended declaration this defendant says it has paid and discharged plaintiff’s claim by payment.”
On these pleas the plaintiff joined issue. The verdict of the jury was a general verdict in favor of defendant and against the plaintiff and was rendered upon direction of the court.
There is absolutely no evidence in the record that the defendant wrongfully retained possession of the insurance policy referred to in the declaration after the same was delivered to the defendant by the plaintiff. Therefore, there was no error in directing a verdict in favor of the defendant.
The judgment should be, and is, affirmed.
Ellis, C. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Davis, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Armored CAR Serv., Inc. v. First Nat'l Bank OF Miami, 114 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)…adverse to the rights of the true owner. Quitman Naval Stores Co. v. Conway, 63 Fla. 253, 58 So. 840; Star Fruit Co. v. Eagle Lake Growers, 160 Fla. 130, 33 So. 2d 858. No such showing was made in this case. See Brockington v. Central Life Ins. Co., 131 Fla. 250, 173 So. 908; George v. Bekins Van & Storage Co., 33 Cal.2d 834, 205 P. 2d 1037; Prosser, Torts, § 15 (2d ed. 1955); 53 Am.Jur., Trover & Conversion, §§ 47, 52 et seq.; 6 Am.Jur., Bailments, §§ 367, 370. The contention that the bank should be held…