Condition Precedent To Liability

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

• Cohen v. Mohawk, Inc.
  137 So. 2d 222· Fla.· 1962-01-24 ·cited 129×
  Real estate brokers who procured a satisfactory lessee for the respondent's properties sought to recover unpaid commission balance after the lease terminated when the lessee could not pay rent and taxes. The Florida Supreme Court held that because the brokers had fully completed
• Tiedtke v. Fid. & Cas. Co. OF NEW York
  222 So. 2d 206· Fla.· 1969-04-23 ·cited 118×
  Tiedtke and Thomas sought indemnity from their liability insurer Fidelity & Casualty after the insurer refused to pay a judgment, claiming the insureds breached the policy's notice requirement by failing to notify the insurer of an accident for three months. The Florida Supreme C
• Scarborough v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co.
  178 F.2d 253· 4th Cir.· 1949-12-03 ·cited 49×
  The court held that the Federal Employers' Liability Act's statute of limitations, even if substantive, can be tolled by the defendant's fraudulent conduct that induces the plaintiff to delay filing suit.
• Batchelder v. Prestman
  103 Fla. 852· Fla.· 1931-12-11 ·cited 35×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a judgment in favor of a plaintiff who sued for a commission on finding a lessee, holding that the trial court erred in striking the defendant's pleas that alleged a materially different contract involving conditional payment of the commission b
• Deese v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co.
  205 So. 2d 328· Fla. 1st DCA· 1967-12-19 ·cited 30×
  An insured's delay in notifying an insurer of an accident violates the policy's notice provision when notice is not given as soon as practicable, and the insured's belief that the accident was too trivial to report does not excuse noncompliance; prejudice to the insurer is presum
• Harbor Ins. Co. v. Trammell Crow Co., Inc.
  854 F.2d 94· 5th Cir.· 1988-09-06 ·cited 23×
  Summary judgment was improperly granted because a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding when the insured's duty to notify the excess insurer arose under the policy's notice provision.
• The Hidden Splendor Mining Co. v. Gen. Ins. Co. of Am.
  370 F.2d 515· 10th Cir.· 1966-12-23 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the insured's notice of loss was untimely under the bond's conditions, as the insured had sufficient knowledge to put a reasonably prudent person on notice of fraud well before the required fifteen-day period.
• United States v. Garland
  122 F.2d 118· 4th Cir.· 1941-07-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the exercise of a cash-surrender option in an insurance policy, when the insured was competent, constitutes a binding fulfillment of the contract, even if the insured later claims to have been totally and permanently disabled at the time of surrender, as the d
• Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United States v. Mercantile Commerce Bank & Tr. Co.
  143 F.2d 397· 8th Cir.· 1944-06-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the insured's letter of October 24, 1939, was insufficient proof of disability for the period in suit, and that the insurer's denial of liability did not constitute a waiver of the requirement for timely proof of disability.
• ELY v. Charellen Corp.
  120 F.2d 984· 5th Cir.· 1941-06-23 ·cited 8×
  A hotel is not liable for the loss of a guest's jewelry unless it was deposited with the management for safekeeping and a receipt was issued.
• State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Coleman C. Murnion and Virginia Murnion
  439 F.2d 945· 9th Cir.· 1971-03-24 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the jury's finding that notice was given as soon as practicable, excusing the delay due to the trivial nature of the accident and lack of apparent injury.
• Owen v. Sears
  273 F.2d 140· 9th Cir.· 1959-12-01 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the plaintiff's failure to provide timely notice of the breach of warranty claim, as required by the Oregon Uniform Sales Act, barred recovery.
• Webb v. The Hillsborough Cnty. Hosp. Auth.
  521 So. 2d 199· Fla. 2d DCA· 1988-02-12 ·cited 1×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal held that, on equal protection grounds, husbands and wives must be treated identically regarding liability for spousal necessaries. The court reversed the common law doctrine that imposed responsibility on husbands but not wives, establishing
• Williams v. Boston Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co.
  26 Fla. Supp. 20· Dade Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1965-05-11
  Williams appealed a small claims court judgment allowing recovery on an insurance claim for stolen property. The circuit court reversed, holding that the insureds' failure to notify the insurance company within a reasonable time after discovering the theft violated a policy condi
• Halpern v. Boston Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co.
  22 Fla. Supp. 134· Dade Cty. Small Cl. Ct.· 1963-10-08
  A small claims court ruled that an insured party forfeited recovery under a theft insurance policy by failing to promptly notify the insurer and police of the loss, as required by the policy contract. The court found that the notice requirement was a condition precedent to liabil
• Habel v. Travelers Ins. Co. of Hartford
  117 F.2d 337· 5th Cir.· 1941-01-29
  The court held that proof of permanent total disability must be furnished while the insurance policy is in force to establish liability, even if the disability occurred before termination.