FIDELITY & CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, APPELLANT,
v.
EVELIO CRUZ, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JOSE L. CRUZ, DECEASED, AND EVELIO CRUZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND HILDA CRUZ, INDIVIDUALLY, 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.
Fidelity & Casualty appealed a summary judgment in an insurance dispute involving uninsured motorist coverage and personal injury protection benefits arising from an automobile accident. The court affirmed the lower court's determination that the plaintiffs were entitled to $11,000 in policy benefits ($10,000 uninsured motorist coverage plus $1,000 personal injury protection).
The court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that there is no genuine triable issue of material fact and that the plaintiffs were entitled to the judgment as a matter of law. The automobile was properly determined to be an uninsured motor vehicle, and the plaintiffs are entitled to the total $11,000 in benefits.
[1] Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
[2] An automobile is considered an uninsured motor vehicle if the owner and operator thereof was uninsured at the time of an automobile accident.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“there is no genuine triable issue of material fact and that appellees were entitled to a judgment as a matter of law”
The court's holding affirming summary judgment and establishing that no factual disputes existed regarding coverage eligibility
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn automobile accident involved a vehicle owned and operated by Robert A. Lyons, which was determined to be an uninsured motor vehicle. The plaintiffs…
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 Waiver Of Subrogation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By this consolidated appeal appellant/defendant seeks review of an adverse final summary judgment, and order denying appellant’s motion to vacate the judgment and for leave to file an amended answer in an action arising out of an insurance dispute.
The judgment, in pertinent part, reads as follows:
“This cause came before me on plaintiff’s motion for Summary Judgment and the Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment and upon hearing argument by counsel and the Court having reviewed the pleadings, stipulations, exhibits and affidavits contained in the Court file, and the Court being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby Ordered and Adjudged:
“1. That Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment be and the same is hereby GRANTED.
“2. That the Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment be and the same is hereby DENIED.
“3. That the Court finds that as a matter of law that the automobile owned and operated by Robert A. Lyons was an uninsured motor vehicle at the time of the subject automobile accident; that consequently, Plaintiffs are afforded $10,000.00 uninsured motorist coverage limits under the subject insurance policy, in addition to $1,000.00 personal injury protection coverage limits for funeral expenses, and Plaintiffs are entitled to total sum of $11,000.00 previously paid by the Defendant to Plaintiffs under the policy.
“4. That the sum of $11,000, to-wit: $1,000 personal injury protection policy limits and $10,000 uninsured motorist policy limits previously paid to Plaintiffs by Defendant and deposited by Plaintiffs in an interest bearing account per Order of Court shall remain in said account pending a further hearing as to whether the Defendant is entitled to an Equitable Distribution on the $10,000 uninsured Motorist Coverage limits in the possession of the Plaintiffs or whether the Defendant has waived or destroyed any right of sub-rogation, if any, it may have had on the Plaintiffs’ settlement with McKenzie Tank Lines, Inc. and Carriers Insurance Company.”
Our examination and consideration of the record on appeal, briefs and argument of counsel convinces us that there is no genuine triable issue of material fact and that appellees were entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Colonial Penn Insurance Company, 379 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Dewberry v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company, 363 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 1978); United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company v. Curry, 371 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Boulnois v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 286 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); Allstate Insurance Company v. Chastain, 251 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971), cert. discharged, 263 So. 2d 578 (Fla.1972).
Accordingly, the orders appealed are hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Dewberry v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 363 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 1978)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Chastain, 251 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Curry, 371 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Chastain, 263 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 1972)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Colonial Penn Ins. Co., 379 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Boulnois v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 286 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- The City OF Ormond Beach v. Bellemead Dev. Corp., 286 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)