WILLIS INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
ALBERT B. LUCKEY, JR., 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 court held that the evidence was insufficient to support a jury verdict for the plaintiff based on the defendant's alleged negligence in failing to procure or maintain insurance coverage.
The plaintiff sued the defendant insurance agency for negligent failure to procure or maintain adequate insurance coverage. Unrebutted testimony showe…
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 Directed Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
Willis Insurance Agency, Inc. [Willis] appeals a final judgment awarding damages to appellee Luckey based upon Willis’s alleged negligent failure to procure or maintain adequate insurance coverage for Luck-ey. Willis also challenges the order denying its post-trial motions. We reverse the final judgment upon a holding that the evidence was insufficient to support a jury verdict predicated upon Willis’s negligence.
Where the evidence is not in conflict and there is no evidence adduced that could in law support a verdict for the non-moving party the trial court can and should direct a verdict in favor .of the movant. Whetzel v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 266 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); Garris v. Robeison, 146 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962).
National Car Rental System, Inc. v. Bostic, 423 So. 2d 915, 917 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), review denied, 436 So. 2d 97, 99 (Fla.1983). See Idy Corp. v. Fenton, 454 So. 2d 13, 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Vecta Contract, Inc. v. Lynch, 444 So. 2d 1093, 1094 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 453 So. 2d 44 (Fla.1984). Unrebutted testimony established that Luckey did not request insurance coverage for the contents of his new apartment; thus, there was no evidence from which the jury could have found Willis negligent for failure to procure or maintain adequate coverage for Luckey.* We therefore hold that the trial court erred in failing to direct a verdict for Willis.
For these reasons, we reverse and remand for the entry of a final judgment in favor of Willis.
*
Although Willis may have been negligent in failing to inform Luckey that his name had been removed from the original policy, Luckey received compensation in the full amount allowable under that policy’s off-premises coverage and may not be heard to complain on that ground.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Horn v. John Hancock Variable Life Ins. Co., 616 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…tself void based on public policy grounds. Professional Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Freytes & Sons Corp., 565 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Brockman, 524 So. 2d 490, 493 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Willis Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Luckey, 466 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Whetzel v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 266 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- Garris v. Robeison, 146 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Nat'l CAR Rental Sys., Inc. v. Bostic, 423 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Vecta Contract, Inc. v. Lynch, 444 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- IDY Corp. v. Penelope Fenton, 454 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)