CONSOLIDATED AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
CHARLES BUCOLO, RESPONDENT

Fla. | 1989-05-25
No. 72844
EHRLICH, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
543 So. 2d 752 Florida Supreme Court (1989) Negative Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.


Holding

The court held that an insurer's notice of a coverage defense must be provided within the time limits set by section 627.426(2), Florida Statutes.


Facts & Procedural History

An insurer provided a policy excluding intentional acts, and the insured, a relative, committed sexual assaults. The trial court found the insurer's c…

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.


Opinion of the Court
SHAW, Justice.

[*753] SHAW, Justice.

We have for review Consolidated American Insurance Co., Inc. v. Bucolo, 526 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), based upon conflict with United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. American Fire and Indemnity Co., 511 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.Const. Petitioner provided homeowners’ insurance to respondent’s mother which specifically excluded coverage for intentional acts by an insured. Respondent, who was an insured relative under the policy, was sued for committing sexual assaults during the period he lived in the home. The trial court ruled that petitioner had not timely asserted a coverage defense under section 627.-426(2), Florida Statutes (1985). The district court affirmed, citing AIU Insurance Co. v. Block Marina Investment, Inc., 512 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), where the court certified direct conflict with United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. We quash the decision of the district court and remand for proceedings consistent with AIU Insurance Co. v. Block Marina Investment, Inc., 544 So. 2d 998 (Fla.1989).

It is so ordered.

EHRLICH, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Consol. Am. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Henderson, 559 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
    …ally excluded. On the authority of its opinion in the Block Marina case, our opinion in Consolidated Am. Ins. Co., upholding the trial court’s decision, was quashed and the cause remanded for further proceedings. Consolidated Am. Ins. Co. v. Bucolo, 543 So. 2d 752 (Fla.1989). On the basis of the supreme court decisions, Consolidated sought relief from the $750,000 judgment, pursuant to Florida [*664] Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(5).1 The trial court denied the motion on a waiver theory, holding that notw…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw