PURITAN INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
WALTER L. FRANK, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
Although Dr. Frank carried his burden of demonstrating his entitlement to coverage under an all risk policy, he nonetheless failed to negate the existence of genuine issues of fact with respect to the insurer’s affirmative defenses of: (a) conversion; and (b) geographical areas of coverage. For this reason, the summary final judgment on coverage is reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Hamilton v. Bank of Palm Beach and Trust Co., 348 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).
That portion of the summary judgment determining non-subrogation is vacated to abide the final resolution of the identical problem presently pending in the federal court system. See Wade v. Clower, 94 Fla. 817, 114 So. 548 (1927).
Reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
SAC Constr. Co., Inc. v. Eagle Nat'l Bank OF Miami, 449 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…re to disprove these affirmative defenses precluded the entry of a summary judgment against SAC and PAR-CAP. While we agree that the movant must disprove or establish the legal insufficiency of an affirmative defense, Puritan Insurance Co. v. Frank, 436 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Wilson v. Pruette, 422 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Allstate Insurance Co. v. Arvida Corp., 421 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), we note that the affirmative defenses were raised by Muller only. Neither SAC nor PAR-CAP filed any…
-
Est. OF Lou Bacon v. Adele Bacon, 573 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…s contained in the beneficiaries’ answer.1 Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966); Russo v. Ross, 545 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Hyde Shipping Corp. v. Concrete Asfaltico Nacional, 507 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Puritan Ins. Co. v. Frank, 436 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). For these [*1036] reasons,2 the summary judgments are reversed and the cause remanded for trial on all issues. This determination moots the pending appeal, no. 90-1061, from the denial of relief under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540(b). That…
-
United Nat'l Ins. Co. v. I & JC Corp., 927 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…based on factual issues that would not normally be alleged in the underlying Complaint, courts may entertain a declaratory action seeking a determination of a factual issue upon which the insurer’s duty to defend depends); Puritan Ins. Co. v. Frank, 436 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Accordingly, we reverse the Final Declaratory Judgment and remand for further proceedings ■ solely ■ as to the issue regarding the applicability of the policy exclusion. Reversed and remanded.…
Authorities Cited
- Neill G. Wade v. Clower, 94 Fla. 817 (Fla. 1927)
- Hamilton v. Bank OF Palm Beach & Tr. Co., 348 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)