DIXIE INSURANCE COMPANY AND JAMES R. JESSELL, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JOSEPH DAVIS, APPELLANTS,
v.
GENNIE LEWIS, 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.
Trial court erred in refusing to modify the final judgment against Dixie Insurance Company to limit its liability to its policy limits, which were disclosed in discovery.
An insurance company's liability in a judgment must be limited to its policy limits when those limits are known and undisputed.
[1] An insurance company's judgment liability must be limited to its policy limits when the limits are disclosed in discovery and undisputed by the parties.
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 intelligenceDixie Insurance Company was a defendant in a judgment. The policy limits were revealed in pretrial discovery with no disagreement between parties abou…
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 Modification Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The issue on this appeal is whether the trial court erred in refusing to modify the final judgment as to appellant, Dixie Insurance Company, so as to limit its liability to the amount of its policy limits. The limits were revealed to appellee in pretrial discovery and there is no disagreement between the parties as to the limits of the policy. Appellants filed a proper motion for modification of judgment accompanied by a supporting affidavit.
Appellee has not seen fit to benefit this court by an appearance to support the action of the trial court in refusing to modify. This issue has previously been decided adversely to appellee by our colleagues on the Third and Fourth District Courts of Appeal. Allstate Insurance Company v. Shilling, 374 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Quinn v. Millard, 358 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Soler v. Kukula, 297 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Stella v. Craine, 281 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973), cert. denied, 289 So. 2d 731 (Fla.1974). On the authority of those cases, we reverse and remand with instructions to enter a modified final judgment as to appellant Dixie Insurance Company only, limited to the amount of its policy limits.
Reversed and remanded.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and LEHAN and SANDERLIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Lewis v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 498 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…h an employee may be discharged due to particular conduct, that conduct does not necessarily constitute a willful and wanton or deliberate violation so as to constitute misconduct precluding compensation. Williams v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 484 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Erber v. Federal Express Corp., 409 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as a result of inability or incapacity, inad-vertencies or ordinary negligence in isolate…
-
Jeri R. Anderson v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 822 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…error in judgment or discretion, and the employer must prove that the employee’s action was willful, wanton, or deliberate.”) (citing Lewis v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 498 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)); Williams v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 484 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Thus, conduct that amounts to poor judgment, such as an isolated incident of an employee’s failure to follow policies and rules, is generally not considered misconduct under section 440.036(29) and is not a basis for denying ben…
-
Trinh Trung DO v. Amoco OIL Co. & Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 510 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…ether the evidence supports a conclusion that appellant was guilty of misconduct as that term is defined by the statute. Appellant postulates a negative response to that question, relying, inter alia, on Williams v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 484 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 5th DCA [*1065] 1986). We are not persuaded by Williams for at least two reasons. First, Williams is distinguishable, at least on the facts recited by the opinion. The misconduct which resulted in discharge in that case is that the employee “v…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Quinn v. Truman Alan Millard, 358 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Soler v. Kukula, 297 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Simonet v. Simonet, 289 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 1974)
- Stella v. Craine, 289 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 1974)
- Martinez v. Tamayo, 374 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Shilling, 374 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Drayton v. State, 281 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- Stella v. Craine, 281 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)