ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN ANDERSON, ZELINDO BIAGIANTI AND DAWN BIAGIANTI, APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Declaratory Decree cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The final declaratory decree rendered in this cause is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court with directions to enter a final decree in favor of the appellant Allstate Insurance Company finding no coverage under the subject insurance policy for the appellee John Anderson based on the authority of General Insurance Company of America v. Reid, 216 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968), cert. denied, 222 So. 2d 752 (Fla.1969), which, in our view, directly controls this case on the insurance coverage issue. See also McCrae v. Snelling, 303 So. 2d 670, 672 n.4 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Allison v. Imperial Casualty & Indemnity Co., 222 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). We have carefully and laboriously examined the authorities contained in the appellee’s brief, as well as conducted extensive independent research, but are nonetheless unpersuaded that an ambiguity existed in the subject insurance policy sufficient to confer the requisite insurance coverage upon the appellee Anderson.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (22 total)
-
Mizrahi v. Noemi Mizrahi, 867 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…t was not before the court, the trial court violated the father’s right to due process. Due process protections prevent a trial court from- deciding matters not noticed for hearing and not the subject of appropriate pleadings. See Fickle v. Adkins, 394 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). In the case before us, the father requested a hearing on his motion to hold the mother in contempt for violating the trial court’s travel restriction order which prohibited travel outside the country by the parties’ children with…
-
Hart v. Hart, 458 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…950); Quay Development, Inc. v. Elegante Building Corporation, 392 So. 2d 901, 903 (Fla.1981). Thus, the general rule is that a court cannot determine “matters not noticed for hearing and not the subject of appropriate pleadings.” Fickle v. Adkins, 394 So. 2d 461, 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). See also Connolly v. Connolly, 448 So. 2d 641, 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (error to award alimony, child support, de facto child custody, and to determine visitation rights where there was no prayer, or other predicate requesti…
-
E.I. DuPONT DE Nemours & Co. v. Lambert, 654 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…oncerning the Sunshine Act litigation would not be encompassed in the underlying suit. The trial court’s summary resolution of the Sunshine Act issues without giving the parties an opportunity to present evidence was error. Riehl; Fickle v. Adkins, 394 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing on the issues involved with the Sunshine in Litigation Act, including the constitutionality of the statute. FRANK, C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 22 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Allison v. Imperial Cas. & Indem. Co., 222 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)
- Gen. Ins. Co. OF Am. v. Reid, 216 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)
- State Rd. Dep't v. Kendry, 222 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 1969)
- McRAE v. Snelling, 303 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)