As Soon As Practicable

18 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Mills
  171 So. 2d 190· Fla. 1st DCA· 1965-01-19 ·cited 44×
  Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company appeals a declaratory decree holding it must defend and indemnify an insured against a negligence claim despite the insured's nine-month delay in notifying Hartford of the accident. The court reversed, holding that Florida law does not requ
• Emp'rs Cas. Co. v. Vargas
  159 So. 2d 875· Fla. 2d DCA· 1964-01-08 ·cited 25×
  Employers Casualty Company sought a declaratory judgment to deny coverage for Antonio Vargas based on alleged untimely notice of an accident under his insurance policy. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Vargas, finding that his notice 45 days after the accident
• The Century Indem. Co. v. Serafine
  311 F.2d 676· 7th Cir.· 1963-01-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the insured's delay in notifying the insurer of the occurrence was not unreasonable given the circumstances, and thus the insurer had a duty to defend.
• Renuart-Bailey-Cheely Lumber & Supply Co. v. Phoenix OF Hartford Ins. Co.
  474 F.2d 555· 5th Cir.· 1972-10-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that summary judgment was improper because whether the insured provided notice 'as soon as practicable' presented genuine issues of material fact regarding the insured's knowledge of the occurrence and its reasonable investigation.
• Levine v. Selective Serv. Local Bd. NO. 18
  458 F.2d 1281· 2d Cir.· 1972-04-14 ·cited 12×
  The court held that dismissal of the complaint was improper because a hearing was necessary to determine if the induction order was issued in violation of Selective Service regulations, specifically whether the board's actions constituted 'blatantly lawless' conduct.
• Travelers Ins. Co. v. Peerless Ins. Co.
  287 F.2d 742· 9th Cir.· 1961-02-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the insurer's denial of liability on grounds other than notice defects waived those defects, and that conflicting 'excess' and 'pro rata' 'other insurance' clauses should be disregarded, leading to prorated liability based on policy limits.
• Dearborn Nat. Cas. Co. v. Consumers Petroleum Co.
  178 F.2d 277· 7th Cir.· 1949-12-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court's findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence and were not clearly erroneous.
• Atl. Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Johnson
  178 So. 2d 733· Fla. 3d DCA· 1965-08-17 ·cited 8×
  Atlantic National Insurance Co. appealed a garnishment judgment in favor of Johnson, who sought to recover against Atlantic under an auto liability policy issued to the defendant Lynch. The court reversed, holding that Lynch's failure to notify Atlantic of an accident for over 17
• Laster v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co.
  293 So. 2d 83· Fla. 3d DCA· 1974-04-16 ·cited 7×
  Emma Laster sought uninsured motorist coverage under an insurance policy issued by United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company for two accidents allegedly involving hit-and-run vehicles. The insurer denied coverage based on Laster's failure to provide timely notice as required by t
• Imperial Cas. & Indem. Co. v. Chicago Hous. Auth.
  987 F.2d 459· 7th Cir.· 1993-03-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Chicago Housing Authority's notice to its insurer was unreasonably late, thus relieving the insurer of coverage obligations.
• State OF Miss. ex rel. v. J.W. "Jake" Richardson
  817 F.2d 1203· 5th Cir.· 1987-06-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that neither the insured nor the county provided timely notice of the claim to the insurer, and the insured's actions constituted deliberate dishonesty or fraud, thus barring coverage.
• The Buckeye Union Cas. Co. v. Perry
  406 F.2d 1270· 4th Cir.· 1969-02-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an unexplained 70-day delay in notifying an insurer of a lawsuit against the insured, after the insured learned of the suit, was unreasonable as a matter of law and precluded coverage. The court also found no basis for estoppel against the insurer.
• Bergh v. Canadian Universal Ins. Co.
  216 So. 2d 436· Fla.· 1968-11-20 ·cited 2×
  The Florida Supreme Court addresses whether a declaratory judgment action is the proper forum to determine an insurance company's liability based on the insured's alleged breach of the notice requirement in a professional liability policy. The court holds that when the central di
• In re ST. Clare's Hosp. & Health Ctr. v. Ins. Co. OF N. Am.
  934 F.2d 15· 2d Cir.· 1991-05-17
  The court held that the hospital provided timely notice of the malpractice claim under the insurance policy, and therefore the insurer has a duty to defend and indemnify.
• Home Ins. Co. v. Ark. Mech. Contractors, Inc.
  531 F.2d 906· 8th Cir.· 1976-03-09
  The court held that the jury's finding that the insured gave notice 'as soon as practicable' was supported by the evidence, and that attorneys' fees could only be awarded to the named insured under the relevant statute.
• Renner v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
  392 F.2d 666· 5th Cir.· 1968-03-25
  The court held that the insurer was prejudiced by the insured's late notice of the accident, excusing the insurer from its defense obligations.
• Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Otho R. DAY
  359 F.2d 484· 10th Cir.· 1964-07-13
  The court held that the insured gave notice of the accident to the insurer as soon as practicable under the circumstances, and affirmed the lower court's judgment.
• Heinz v. The United States
  312 F.2d 759· Ct. Cl.· 1963-02-06
  The court held that the government's obligation was to permit early invoice submission and pay for materials as soon as practicable, which it fulfilled, and there was no promise of special payment priority.