PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
LARK LYNETTE LAMBERT, RESPONDENT
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.
Florida Supreme Court quashed the Fourth District's reversal of summary judgment for Prudential, holding that Prudential did not have a duty to afford uninsured motorist coverage to Lambert, resolving a conflict among district courts by applying New Hampshire Insurance Group v. Harbach.
An insurance company does not have a duty to afford uninsured motorist coverage under the circumstances presented.
[1] An insurer does not have a duty to afford uninsured motorist coverage under circumstances governed by the principles established in New Hampshire Insurance Group v. …
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 intelligenceLambert sought uninsured motorist coverage from Prudential Property and Casualty 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 Coverage Dispute cases and more on FLexlaw
OVERTON, Justice.
This is a petition to review a decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal reported as Lambert v. Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance Co., 426 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). We find direct conflict with Vetter v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 423 So. 2d 991 (Fla.3d DCA 1982); Allstate Insurance Co. v. Alvarez, 414 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Indomenico v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 388 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Wimpee, 376 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 385 So. 2d 762 (Fla.1980); and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Kuhn, 374 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 383 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We have resolved this conflict in our decision in New Hampshire Insurance Group v. Harbach, 439 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 1983). For the reasons expressed in that decision, we quash that part of the district court’s decision in the instant case which reversed the final summary judgment finding that Prudential did not afford uninsured motorist coverage to respondent.
It is so ordered.
ALDERMAN, C.J., and BOYD, MCDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur. ADKINS, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (86 total)
-
Dadeland Depot, Inc. v. ST. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 945 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 2006)…to apply, several conditions must exist, which include: “identity of the thing sued for; identity of the cause of action; identity of [the] parties; and identity of the quality in the person for or against whom the claim is made.” Albrecht v. State, 444 So. 2d 8, 12 (Fla.1984). Res judicata applies to matters actually raised and determined in the original proceeding and also to matters which could have properly been raised and determined. See State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287, 290 (Fla.2003). Both parties i…
-
Dep't of Agric. & Consumer Servs. v. Mid-Florida Growers, Inc., 521 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 1988)…tention that the state’s order was a valid exercise of its police power, it is a settled proposition that a regulation or statute may meet the standards necessary for exercise of the police power but still result in a taking.1 See Albrecht v. State, 444 So. 2d 8 (Fla.1984). See also Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 425, 102 S.Ct. 3164, 3170, 73 L.Ed.2d 868 (1982). As recently stated by the United States Supreme Court, a basic understanding of “the [Fifth] Amendment makes clear tha…
-
Dep't OF Agric. & Consumer Servs. v. Polk, 568 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 1990)…lenge the validity of the Department’s statutory authority. Further, Polk neither challenged the validity of the Department’s rule nor alleged that the Department failed to comply with or properly implement the [*39] rule. Compare Albrecht v. State, 444 So. 2d 8 (Fla.1984) (where first action constituted a challenge to the propriety of the agency’s actions). In Corneal v. State Plant Board, 95 So. 2d 1, 4 (Fla.1957), this Court stated: In enacting regulatory measures which protect but do not destroy prope…
Previewing 3 of 86 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Kuhn, 374 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Wimpee, 376 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Indomenico v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 388 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Enmund v. State, 439 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 1983)
- NEW Hampshire Ins. Grp. v. Harbach, 439 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 1983)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Alvarez, 414 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Kinmon v. State, 414 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Vetter v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 423 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- City OF Miami v. Fla. Retail Fed'n, Inc., 423 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Lark Lynette Lambert v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 426 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)