UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS, LONDON, APPELLANT,
v.
VIP DISTRIBUTORS, INC., 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.
Underwriters at Lloyds, London appealed a summary judgment in favor of VIP Distributors regarding a denied insurance claim for missing perfume cargo. The court reversed, finding that material factual disputes existed regarding whether the goods were actually loaded onto the aircraft, precluding summary judgment.
Summary judgment was improper because the record contained a disputed issue of material fact regarding whether the goods were loaded onto the aircraft. The absence of required documentation when the nonstop flight arrived in Miami created a genuine factual dispute that precluded summary judgment.
[1] A movant on a motion for summary judgment bears the burden of demonstrating the nonexistence of any disputed issue of material fact.
[2] Discrepancies in shipping documents can raise a disputed issue of material fact regarding whether goods were loaded onto an aircraft.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It is axiomatic that on a motion for summary judgment, it is the burden of the movant to demonstrate the nonexistence of any disputed issue of material fact.”
Establishes the legal standard that the moving party must prove there is no genuine dispute of material fact to obtain summary judgment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVIP Distributors, an importer and distributor, shipped approximately $300,000 worth of perfume products via Ladeco Airlines to Miami in 1990. The carg…
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 Claim Denial cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Underwriters at Lloyds, London, appeal a summary final judgment. We reverse.
Lloyds issued an open cargo policy of insurance to appellee VIP Distributors, Inc., which is in the business of importing and distributing goods. VIP contends that, in 1990, it shipped approximately $300,000 worth of perfume products by Ladeco Airlines to Miami, Florida. The morning following the arrival of the Ladeco flight, the perfume products could not be located among the cargo unloaded from the Ladeco airplane. VIP made an insurance claim with Lloyds, which denied coverage.1 It is axiomatic that on a motion for summary judgment, it is the burden of the movant to demonstrate the nonexistence of any disputed issue of material fact. Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla.1985); Connelly v. Arrow Air, Inc., 568 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) review denied, 581 So. 2d 1307 (Fla.1991); Francoeur v. Pipers, Inc., 560 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
In the present case, VIP has produced evidence indicating that the goods were loaded on the relevant Ladeco flight to Miami, and that the flight was a nonstop flight. In opposition, Lloyds points to a number of discrepancies in the documents relating to the shipment. On the present state of the record, it appears that when the aircraft arrived in Miami, the aircraft crew was carrying an advisory and four air bills relating to other cargo, but was not in possession of an advisory and air bill relating to the shipment of perfume goods. In the normal course, such documents would have immediately been presented to United States Customs. Lloyds argues, and we agree, that the apparent absence of these documents when the nonstop flight arrived in Miami raises a disputed issue of material fact as to whether the goods in question were actually loaded on board the aircraft in Paraguay.
We conclude that, as the record now stands, summary judgment should not have been entered. Accordingly, we reverse the summary final judgment and remand the cause for further proceedings. At argument, the insured suggested that the advisory and air bill do, in fact, exist, but have not yet been located by the United States Customs Service. Nothing we say here precludes the submission of another motion for summary judgment on a more fully developed record. As matters now stand, however, the insured has not carried its burden of demonstrating the nonexistence of a disputed issue of material fact.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
. VIP also made a claim against Ladeco. Lade-co entered into a settlement with VIP, which covered part of the claimed loss.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kanov v. Jean Bitz, M.D., 660 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…organized or utilized by Jean Bitz, M.D., to defraud Kanov as alleged thereby precluding the disposition of this issue by way of summary judgment. See Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966); Underwriters at Lloyds, London v. VIP Distribs., Inc., 629 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Henry v. ISS Int’l Serv. Sys., Inc., 627 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Nelson v. Balkany, 620 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). We find no merit to the remaining points on appeal. Affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in…
-
Harris v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
-
Harris v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…ormer summary judgment standard, “[i]t is axiomatic that on a motion for summary judgment, it is the burden of the movant to demonstrate the nonexistence of any disputed issue of material fact.” Underwriters at Lloyds, London v. VIP Distribs., Inc., 629 So. 2d 291, 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Until this occurs, “no burden rests upon the non-moving party to submit evidence in proof of the essential elements of its cause of action.” Croft v. York, 244 So. 2d 161, 163 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). Harris’s joint operation…
Authorities Cited
- Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1985)
- Connelly v. Arrow AIR, Inc., 568 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Francoeur v. Pipers, Inc., 560 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)