LINDA T. SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., ETC., APPELLEE
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 Fifth District reversed a summary final judgment against an insurance policyholder and remanded for further proceedings, following State Farm v. Bergman, while acknowledging the decision conflicts with other appellate districts on the underlying legal issue.
A summary final judgment in an insurance dispute must be reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings when the legal question is governed by State Farm v. Bergman.
[1] A summary final judgment in an insurance dispute may be reversed and remanded when the controlling precedent requires further proceedings rather than summary disposition.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLinda T. Smith appealed a summary final judgment entered against her in a dispute with State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.…
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 Insurance Claim Dispute cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The summary final judgment entered herein is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings, on the authority of State Farm Insurance Company v. Bergman, 387 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 5th DCA, 1980).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DAUKSCH, C. J., ORFINGER, J., and EVANS, VERNON W., Associate Judge, concur. ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
PER CURIAM.
Appellees request that we clarify the brief opinion filed herein by expressly pointing out the conflict between this decision and cases decided by other appellate courts. Because there is such conflict and we do not intend to preclude further review of this decision, we clarify our earlier opinion by noting that the decision sub judice, by relying on State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Bergman, 387 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), expressly conflicts with: Carter v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 377 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Florida Farm Bureau Cas. Co. v. Andrews, 369 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); and Aetna Casualty and Surety Company v. Ilmonen, 360 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).
The motion for clarification is granted, and as clarified herein, we adhere to our original opinion.
DAUKSCH, C. J., ORFINGER, J., and EVANS, VERNON W., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Gerhard S. Bergman, 408 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 1982)…PER CURIAM. The decisions of the district court of appeal, 387 So. 2d 494; 388 So. 2d 1082; 392 So. 2d 267; 392 So. 2d 268, in the above-styled cases are approved on the authority of Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Lackore, 408 So. 2d 1040 (Fla.1982). It is so ordered. SUNDBERG, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, ALDERMAN and MCDONALD, JJ., concu…
Authorities Cited
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Gerhard S. Bergman, 387 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Carter v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. & Eual T. Berry, 377 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Ilmonen, 360 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Fla. Farm Bureau Cas. Co. v. Suetta L. Andrews, 369 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)