UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT J. FLYNN AND JOYCE FLYNN, 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.
The court affirmed judgment for the insured on a homeowner's insurance burglary claim, rejecting the insurer's challenges to summary judgment, evidentiary rulings, and attorney fees.
An insurer's partial summary judgment on liability in a homeowner's insurance burglary claim is properly granted and affirmed when the insurer fails to demonstrate reversible error.
The insured held a homeowner's insurance policy with the appellant insurer and suffered a loss from burglary. Partial summary judgment on liability wa…
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 Burden Of Demonstrating Reversible Error cases and more on FLexlaw
In this action the plaintiff, who was insured under a homeowner’s insurance policy issued by the appellant defendant, sought recovery for a loss resulting from burglary. Partial summary judgment on liability was granted in favor of the plaintiff insured. On a jury trial of the issues relating to damages a verdict was rendered in favor of plaintiff for $5,000. Judgment was entered thereon which included an allowance for plaintiff’s attorney fees. The defendant appealed.
The appellant contends the trial court committed error in granting the partial summary judgment; in denying subsequent motions of the defendant to set the summary judgment aside and permit the filing of an amended answer; in excluding certain proffered evidence at the trial; and further contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, and that the amount allowed to plaintiff for attorney fees was excessive. We have considered the several contentions of the appellant in the light of the record and briefs and conclude they are without merit, and that no reversible error has been demonstrated. No useful purpose would be served by detailed listing of facts and the procedural matters to which the appellant’s contentions relate and by reciting the respective arguments of counsel thereon.
The judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dillard Smith Constr. Co. v. Greene, 337 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)…(Fla.App.3d, 1972); Prosser, Torts § 32 at 161 (4th ed. 1971). The allegation is not made less sufficient by its conjunction with insufficient alternative allegations. Rule 1.110(g), R.C.P.; Beymer-Mann Co., Inc. v. Cross-Country Truck Serv., Inc., 245 So. 2d 281 (Fla.App.2d, 1971). Obviously, we are here concerned only with the sufficiency of appellant’s pleading, not with its proof. On remand, the insuffi- [*844] dent, immaterial allegations of negligence should be stricken. Rule 1.140(f), R.C.P. An answe…