RICHARD CUMINALE, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF DONNA G. CUMINALE, APPELLANT,
v.
GREAT OAKS CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1990-05-08
No. 89-2106
Before NESBITT, BASKIN and GODERICH, JJ.
562 So. 2d 739 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1990) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Porr v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 452 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), review dismissed, 496 So. 2d 816 (Fla.1986); Griffin v. Travelers Indem. Co., 328 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).

NESBITT and GODERICH, JJ., concur.

Dissent
BASKIN, Judge

[*740] BASKIN, Judge

(dissenting).

The policy under consideration provides among its benefits:

The Company will pay ... (b) 60% of work loss, ... incurred as a result of bodily injury, caused by an accident arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle and sustained by: (1) the named insured. ...”

The policy defines bodily injury as “... bodily injury, sickness, or disease, including death at any time resulting therefrom.” Work loss is defined as “... any loss of income and earning capacity from the inability to work proximately caused by the injury sustained by the injured person.”

The parties’ contract calls for the payment of benefits under the circumstances in this case. Any ambiguity concerning coverage under the policy must be construed in favor of the insured. Matthews v. Ranger Ins. Co., 281 So. 2d 345 (Fla.1973); National Merchandise Co., Inc. v. United Serv. Auto. Ass’n, 400 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); see also Schultz v. First Edina Nat’l Bank, 409 N.W. 2d 281 (Minn.Ct.App.1987). For these reasons, I would reverse the decision denying benefits for loss of work. See Benton v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 295 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Jones v. State, 666 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
    …Affirmed. JORGENSON, J., concurs. . M.F. v. State, 562 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); G.C. v. State, 560 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), affd, 572 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 1991); see also E.W. v. State, 560 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); R.L.B. v. State, 562 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), rev. dismissed, 575 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 1991). . For example, a person may unlawfully ''obtain” or "use” a motor vehicle, within the meaning of Section 812.014(1), Florida Statutes (1991), by towing the vehicle away without ever ha…
  • State v. R.L.B., 575 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 1991)
    …OVERTON, Justice. The State of Florida petitions this Court to review R.L.B. v. State, 562 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), in which the Third District Court of Appeal reduced the trial court’s finding of delinquency from third-degree grand theft to the lesser offense of trespass to a conveyance, relying on the “controlling and indistinguishable autho…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw